BX 


8065 


1 G3 




1 Copy 


1 



ffli 



9 ■; '/' 



l&Hi 



SHI 



a" J 



1111111 i 

'" Egg ggg ■ ■ '• 

HH 

H 

T 




• f: 



VA|0ff |II * 



..'IAN TRIP 




11 1111 

HnlBls 

Milll 



i 



H 



Ik 



■ 





Qass-J^ Xg O &S ' 

Book , Gv3 

CopghtN 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSm 



HAND-BOOK 

OF 

CHRISTIAN TRUTH 

A Guide for all that wish to 
know the Way of Salvation. 



By HOWARD C. GARVIC, A M 

Pastor of St. Mark's Luth. Church 
Atchison, Kans. 




1913 

German Literary Board 
Burlington, Ia. 



(*£ 



Copyright, 1913 

By R. NEUMANN , 

Burlington, la. 



/ 



©CI.A357757 



To her 

HI h o is my companion. 
Whose fellowship i\ sliare, 
,Ano mljosc Itelp 31 haoc cnioneo 
IBb Wife 

-5 

(Tliis hook is oeoicateo 



FORWORD. 

In the writing of this little treatise we have had in mind two 
things: (1) to provide a brief, logical and suggestive state- 
ment of Christian doctrine; (2) and to present the same in 
conformity to positive Lutheran teaching. 

It has been our desire to present a statement of Christian 
truth in such form as will, when properly used, facilitate the 
return, not only of the unsaved outside the church to a knowl- 
edge of the saving truth, but those within as well, to a deeper 
consciousness of its divine wealth. We aim to realize but one 
thing: the arousing of the mind and heart to serious thought 
upon the great fundamental facts of God's revelation. 

That there is need of such, is beyond question. In a day 
when the material viewpoint predominates, not only is a 
neglect of God's word a natural consequence, but a neglect to 
contemplate the finer things of the soul follows as well. To 
aid the pastor who attempts to reach the present day man. by 
providing a hand-book on religion which he can place in his 
hands, is our desire. 

This aim has very largely determined the form of our 
present effort. As such we have planned to make it intensive 
rather than extensive and hence have omitted detail which 
otherwise would have been included. The task of supplying 
this will fall to the pastor who can amplify it in a maimer 
impossible within the scope of this book. 

It is the direct outgrowth of our work among adults- in 
trying to reach them for religious life and for the church. 
Here we have discovered the difficulty of interesting all whom 
we seek in any plan for Bible instruction, to be carried out at 
a stated time and place. Many things — as home duties, work, 
etc. — enter in to make this condition possible and necessitate 
some other means of reaching them. Ignorance of the Word 



of God and indifference to the church make it difficult to get 
in touch with the man of today. It is such a condition and 
such a need that this hand-book anticipates. In size it is be- 
tween the tract and the larger works abroad upon the teach- 
ings of Christianity. We have avoided on purpose the use of 
technical words and sentences as far as possible. Its 
language anticipates not, only the man outside the church — ■ 
and hence unaccustomed to many moral terms — but likewise 
t he man who counts himself a Christian but who is lacking the 
stimulus of clean-cut convictions upon the great facts of his 
religion. While we have used Luther's Small Catechism as our 
guide throughout and have in many places used its exact 
language — as in Study 19 — yet this hand-book does not lay 
any claim to being an explanation of the same. While we have 
altered the form and order of its teaching, we have not changed 
its substance or spirit. We have simply tried to adapt its 
teaching to the average man, by changing the form of its 
presentation. 

With the prayer that God will use this little book, not only 
to the converting, but likewise to the edifying of many souls, 
we send it forth on its mission. 

HOWARD C. GARVIC. 
Atchison, Kansas, August 20, 1913. 



STUDY I. 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE BIBLE. 

II. Peter 1:21 — "For the prophecy came not in old time by the 

will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved 

by the Holy Ghost." 

It is most natural that any study which anticipates the 
moral life and needs of man should begin with that of the 
Bible. It is preeminently the standard in all matters which 
pertain to the moral relations of the human soul, a fact which 
accounts in no small measure for the large place this book 
holds in the estimation of men. It is now and has been for no 
small time the center of his life and thought, not only because 
of its general contribution to his material well being, but more 
particularly in view of its witness upon the deeper and more 
profound problems of his heart. 

Its place therefore in man's life is emphasized by its moral 
value to his interests; its power for him and with him is not 
incidental, but essential. His Faith will rest upon the Bible 
then, because it is first grounded in it. Its hold upon his life 
is not the result of a mere passing sentiment but of conviction. 
He realizes that the day is long past when any apology is 
becessary in its behalf. Its witnesses are to be found in every 
clime ; and its influence is contingent upon no imaginary line 
of geography. It is a universal book because it has a world- 
wide message that interprets the needs of the universal man. 

It is no longer an open question as to whether we will, give 
it a place in our considerations. We have come to see that it 
is an indispensable factor to human life and that its influence 
is felt in every nook and corner of man's effort. The modern 
question then is not how large a place I am willing to accord it, 
but how large a place does it claim. It not only claims a place 
in the field of literature, but in that of science as well. It asks 
to be heard not only in the halls of the university, but in the 



— 8 — 

counting house and in the marts of trade as well. It has been 
given a re-birth on the statute books of every civilized govern- 
ment of the world, and human rights have been guarded and 
preserved only as society has followed its leadership. 

In size, it is a small book. It has been carried in the vest 
pocket in some instances ; but in import, it is as big as eternity. 
In this little book man not only finds the way to heaven, but 
also the way to hell; it is not the guide to life only, but it like- 
wise reveals the road to death.. 

ITS NATIVITY. 

Where was it born? How did it come to be in its present 
form? Is it the work of man unaided, or is it the product of 
man aided by divine power ? Did it come down from the skies 
— a feature claimed by other sacred -writings — or was its birth 
realized on the earth ? These are questions that have had large 
interest for man, and which have disturbed him as he has come 
to estimate their place in the world, 

We have been speaking of the Bible as a book. It is more 
than a book; it is a collection of little books, made up of 66 
different books, written at different times and places, — some of 
the books being separated by more than 1000 years — and by 
different authors, it presents the greatest diversity in the most 
wonderful unity. These 66 books are divided into two parts: 
(1st) the Old Testament, consisting of 39 books written before 
the coming of Jesus Christ and narrating the history of God's 
chosen people in preparation for His coming; and (2nd) the 
New Testament consisting of 27 books written after His com- 
ing, and concerning themselves with the facts of His history. 

To this collection of books, into one book, we have given 
the name 'Bible.' This name is taken from the Greek word, 
which means 'a book,' which in turn is derived from the char- 
acter of the material upon which the writing was made, which 
was the Byblus or Papyrus, an Egyptian reed out of which the 
first paper was made. > 

This book has not come to us in its present form by mere 



chance. It has a history. Imagine that before you is a quaint 
old chest, having three compartments. In the first of these 
compartments we see many papers yellow with age which we 
will call manuscripts. The date of their writing ranges any- 
where from 300 A. D. to 450 A. D. These are copies of the 
originals which were lost during the awful persecution of the 
early church and contain in whole or in part our present Bible. 
These manuscripts are a result of the necessity of the times, 
and as the early church did not have the printing press as yet, 
the only way for one man to get a copy — say of the Gospels — 
was to either copy it himself or hire a scribe to do it for him. 
Thus fathers who had access to the original ones secured copies 
for their sons; also as churches began to multiply they de- 
manded more copies and in this manner many manuscripts of 
the New Testament writings came into existence. These have 
been recovered from the old libraries, many of which have 
been dug out from under the ruins of the cities having them, 
and gathered into the museums of Europe so that today we 
have thousands of them at our command. These form the pri- 
mary basis of our present Bible. 

But the early church had her great preachers and interpre- 
ters of the divine word also. Among these we want to men- 
tion Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Origen, — the 
former one being a disciple of St. John who wrote the Fourth 
Gospel. History knows them as Church Fathers. They have 
left us their comments upon the life and teaching of Jesus 
Christ and consequently have quoted very largely from the 
New. Testament books. These sayings of the Church Fathers 
we will put in the second compartment of the old chest as 
material for determining the nativity of our present Bible. 

As the church grew, not only in the number of adherents but 
in the number of organizations, there was a demand, not for 
a few scattered copies of the New Testament writings but that 
they might as far as possible be gathered together into one 
book. After comparing the manuscripts one with the other 
and these then with the sayings of the Church Fathers, the 



— 10 — 

result is a single collection of the writings into one book. 
This we call a version. These we gather from the various 
churches of all time and place them in the third compartment 
of the old chest. 

Now we have as the source from which to draw our material 
for our Bible, (1) Manuscripts; (2) Sayings of the Church 
Fathers; and (3) the Various Versions of the Church. When 
King James of England, appointed a company of men to give 
to the world a new edition — or version — of the Bible, this was 
the material at their command and the result of their effort 
was what is now known as the 'King James's Version' of the 
Bible. This was finished in 1611 A. D. But that w r as many 
years ago, — over 300 years. Within this time many manu- 
scripts as well as many comments by the Church Fathers were 
discovered which were not at hand at the time of the making 
of the King James Version. Among the new manuscripts dis- 
covered was one of great value — the Sinaitic manuscript,- -and 
so named because it was discovered in an old monastery on Mt. 
Sinai. It takes us back to within 200 years of the time when 
St. John wrote the Fourth Gospel. With these facts before 
them another committee proceeded to make another edition of 
the Bible, and in 1881 gave to the world what is known as 
'The Revised Version of the Bible.' The same method used in 
the production of the New Testament characterizes in the 
main, the collection of the books which form our Old Testa- 
ment. 

It is true that the early church witnessed the production of 
many other important and valuable writings upon the life and 
teachings of Jesus Christ which apparently are of equal value 
with the writings that compose our present Bible. This forces 
the question at this point, How did the present books come to 
find a place in our Bible? Why did the early church choose 
these specific books while casting out other writings apparently 
as important? Or, What is the rule or standard of measure- 
ment by which one book secured a place in the Bible, while 
another was cast out? This measuring rod, we call a 'Canon.' 



— 11 — 

The Roman Catholic church says they are in the Bible because 
the church said so ; their place in the sacred book is guaranteed 
and based on the authority of the church. On the other hand 
the Protestant church says they are there because of their 
special testimony to Jesus Chrst. The catholic accepts the 
Bible as the word of God because the church says so : the 
protestant because God, speaking in terms of Jesus 
Christ tells him so. . The former asks, What does the 
church say? The latter, What does God say? The Protestant 
believes it to be God's Word because through it He has spoken 
to him in such manner as to convince him that it is God who 
speaks. This was the great test applied to the books of the 
Bible by Dr. Martin Luther. 'Does it concern itself with 
Christ or does it not?' was his measure of every book. This 
must have been in some manner the test likewise of the church 
of the first century. 

ITS NATURE. 

While it is true within certain limits that the Bible is both 
a book and a collection of books, yet it is preeminently more 
than this. It is even more than a mere collection of religious 
books, a fact which likewise marks the literature of other re- 
ligions and with which many times the Bible is confounded. 
Buddism, Confucianism and Taoism, each have their sacred 
writings; Mohammedianism has its Koran. None of these how- 
ever, have the positive spiritual value — in fact many times 
lacking a clean, moral tone — such as characterizes the books of 
our Bible. Prof. Max Muller, the great writer on religions 
says, that the writings noted above — and they are the chief of 
the heathen writings — "contain much that is silly, artificial, 
even hideous and repellent." They are religious books, minus 
Jesus Christ. 

The Bible is the Word of God. It does not simply contain 
His word, but it is His word. This is a distinction you must 
well keep in mind, for it marks a fact that no man 
searching after truth today can afford to overlook. This comes 



— 12 — 

"because these books which form our Bible are in direct con- 
nection with God's historical revelation which culminated in 
Jesus Christ." This is the rock upon which the church is 
founded; likewise society and government. It is not its pe- 
culiar type of literature, neither is it its moral tone simply that 
separates it from all other religious writings, but its disclosure 
of God in terms of Jesus Christ. It is the scarlet thread, of the 
Cross that runs through the whole of the Bible, binding and 
uniting the books into one complete whole. It is vastly more 
than a mere collection of a few dissertations on the facts of 
common morality. It is more than the disclosure of even ideas 
— although new — about God. Its task was none other than to 
confront man with his God. This is the fact that has impressed 
the Truth upon us and made us to feel the power of its spirit. 
It is its moral value then, both for time and eternity, in terms 
of personal knowledge of Him as Savior and Lord, that con- 
stitutes its true influence with man. It is this value conceived 
and experienced that makes it indispensible and gives it its 
warrant in making claim upon his affections and interests. 
These books speak not simply as God would speak; they 
speak as He does speak. This is their guarantee to us that 
their voice is a divine one and not a mere human adaptation. 

Its pages tell their own story: Holy men of God spake as 
they were moved by the Holy Ghost." It is then an inspired 
book, because it came from the hands of men chosen and di- 
rected by the Holy Spirit. 

But if it is an inspired book, it will take an inspired reader 
to interpret the book; Do not think that the question of inspir- 
ation is a quibble over words. It is not concerned simply with 
sentences and phrases. These belong to rhetoric and are the 
play of the grammarian. Inspiration goes far deeper than 
these mere transient forms of speech. It is dependent upon 
more stable facts. Were it not for this fact, the Bible would — 
if we are to judge by human standards — long ago have passed 
into that class of writings which have lost their hold upon the 
human heart and no longer speak peace to his soul. 



— 13 — 

Its pages reveal a Christ who not only lives in the religious 
experience of millions today, but one who lived in history as 
well. Its Christ is not a mere creation of the feelings or mind 
of man. He is a creature of history. The realization of His 
presence in life is not the realization of a mere idea. It is the 
touch of a personal presence, templed in a human body, that 
Iras lived and moved among men. 

Neither are the writers "of the book which compose our 
Bible mere creatures of the imagination. They are not sub- 
jects of fiction but of historic fact. The scenes, events and 
personages of sacred history, are just as reliable and accounted 
for by just as strong evidence as any event or person de- 
scribed in secular history. The pages of the. Bible reveal not 
myth, neither the wild inventions of fancy, but fact and truth. 

It is this book which has pillowed the thrones of kings. It 
has been the pole "star in the midnight of social life and order. 
It blazed a path of noon-day light across the face of the Dark 
Continent. It stilled the pulse of the martyrs of the first 
century church. It not only washes from the face of the toiler 
the wrinkles of care, but it wipes away also the tear for the 
weary. It not only guides the feet of the youth, but likewise 
guilds the brow of the aged saint with the gold of the setting 
sun. It writes across the threshold of every life, "mark the 
perfect man and behold the upright : for the end of that man 
is peace." It is this book that challenges your manhood: that 
asks your faith : that demands your worship. 

A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE BIBLE. 

1. THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

1. THE PENTATEUCH (Or the five books of Moses). 

a) Genesis; 

b) Exodus; 

c) Leviticus; 

d) Numbers; 

e) Deuteronomy. 

2. THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 

a) Joshua; b, Judges; c, Ruth; d, First and Second Samuel; e. 
First and Second Kings; f. First and Second Chronicles; g, 
Ezra; h, Nehemiah. 



— 14 — 

3. THE POETICAL BOOKS 

a) Job; b, Psalms; c, Proverbs; b, Ecclesiastes — or the Preacher-, 
e, Song of Solomon. 

4. THE PEOPHETICAL BOOKS 

A. The Major Prophets. 

a)- Isaiah; b, Jeremiah, (including lamentations); c, Ezekiel; 
d, Daniel. 

B. The Minor Prophets. 

a) Hosea; b, Joel; c, Amos; d, Obadiah; e, Jonah; f, Micah; 
g, Nahum; h, Habakkuk; i, Zephaniah; j, Haggai; kj 
Zechariah; 1, Malachi. 

II. THE NEW TESTAMENT 

1. THE HISTOEICAL BOOKS 

A. The Gospels. 

a) Matthew— 70 A. D.; 

b) Mark— 66 A. D.; 

c) Luke— 70 A. D.; 

d) John— 90-100 A. D.; 

B. The Acts of the Apostles— 75-80 A. D. 

2. THE DOCTEINAL BOOKS 

A. The Epistles of St. Paul. 

a) Eomans — 58 A. D.; 

b) I. and II. Corinthians — 57 A. D.; 

c) G-alatians — 58 A. D.; 

d) Ephesians— 60-63 A. D.; 

e) Philippians— 60-63 A. D.; 

f) Colossians— 60-63 A. D.; 

g) I. and II. Thessalonians — 52 and 53 A. D. 
h) I. and II. Timothy— 57 and 69 A. D. 

i) Titus— 67 A. D.; 

j) Philemon— 60-63 A. D. 

k) Hebrews — Indefinite. 

B. The General Epistles. 

a) James — 45 or 62 A. D.; 

b) I. and II. Petter— 64 and 68 A. D. 

c) I. and II. and III. John— 90-100 A. D.; 

d) Jude— 67-68 A. D. 

3. THE PEOPHETICAL BOOK 

a) Eevclation — byJohn the Apostle — 68 or 95 A. D. 
(The number opposite each book is the probable date of its writing.) 



STUDY II. 
THE DOCTRINE OF GOD. 

I. Corinthians 2 :5 — ' ' That your faith should not stand in the 

wisdom of men, but in the power of God." 

The thought of God is not only of supreme importance to 
man, but it is so because it is the central one in the Bible 
itself. Of all the great Truths which illumine its pages, that 
which relates to God is the greatest. It is at the bottom of all 
man's thinking on moral things and facts. It is the paramount 
consideration in all his activities. 

There is no system of error extant today which, is not 
founded upon an erroneous conception of God. No Program, 
either modern or ancient, social or moral exists, which does 
not anticipate some conception of a Divine Being. Man's 
whole outlook upon the universe ; his estimation of the physical 
facts about him; the mental feelings which stir him; and the 
value which he places upon himself, all are determined in their 
quality by what he conceives the character of their origin to 
be. It is highly important then, that we entertain right views 
and have true convictions about the being whom we call God. 
If correct knowledge of Him is essential to a right moral re- 
lationship with Him, it is highly necessary for man to exercise 
great care in the selection of a teacher and the source of the 
information which shall acquaint him with His character. 
Precaution here, will not be attended by difficulty when he 
comes to answer the questions that will arise relative to the 
character of his God. 

HOW CAN I KNOW THERE IS A GOD? 

This is a question that is fundamental with each of us. It 
faces us with one of the profoundest problems of human life. 
It is the great mystery of Truth. With some it seems to have 
no answer. But this is only apparent as a study of the facts 
will show. 



— 16 — 

When man thinks of himself, separate and distinct from his 
environment, he realizes that he is not essentially a part of it. 
That he is not the same either in degree or kind, with the 
physical facts around him, is a truth which he very early in 
life realizes. He recognizes that his environment is not his 
master; it is his servant. Thus he conceives of himself under 
quite a different and higher form of relationship : a form which 
he calls the moral. This relates him, not to the world of sense 
but to that of spirit. His origin then is not to be accounted for 
by the manipulation of physical laws but in the activity of 
spiritual ones. 

He is supremely a moral spirit — a form under which man 
always recognizes himself, even in heathendom — and cannot 
be the product of a blind, unintelligent and non-moral force. 
It is this element of the moral in man that constitutes the 
unsolved problem of evolution in its attempt to overthrow God 
in his creation. 

Man universal is conscious that he essentially is an effect of 
quite another cause than that advanced by the foes of the 
genetic account of his creation. He feels that he is the product 
of intelligence and a being whose nature he in no small way 
shares. He is a creature and not a thing, and his creator is 
reflected in his being. 

This is evidenced by the world-wide tendency towards acts 
of worship. We can have cities without walls: governments 
without laws : but the tribe or race of people without its God, 
worship, prayer and an altar, is yet to be found. Say what 
you will this groping and searching to realize God, howsoever 
gross and crude be the form of its attempts, is very significant. 
It is not the product of a pagan superstition or ignorant senti- 
ment, but of the soul's attempt to realize itself in its true and 
native relationship "with its maker. In the higher scale of life, 
this groping ceases because supplanted" with positive and con- 
scious knowledge; in the lower fojms of human life, it is but 
the blind feeling of intuition as the soul attempts to translate 
its moral feelings under the forms of worship. 



— 17 — 

Tims it is that in the mind of the pagan we have an "idea 
of God." It is a small starting point, but yet a starting point. 
How is it to be accounted for? It is not the product of either 
human knowledge or culture. It must come from without him 
and we believe its nativity is in God. It is true that the mere 
'idea of God' even as interpreted under the low forms of pagan 
worship may not account for a well organized system of re- 
ligion, but it does play a very important part in its birth at 
least. It must be taken into any account which aims to in- 
terpret the moral consciousness of the lower forms of human 
life and no one as yet has given us any account of the 
existence of this 'idea of God' that surpasses that given by 
the Christian leadership, which places it in God Himself. 
Aside from this conclusion no rational explanation has ever 
been given the 'idea of God' that exists in the mind of the 
heathen. 

(2) We believe in a world composed of many worlds: we 
call it a universe. This presents to our minds a wonderful 
variety of phenomena. We see each working in its particular 
sphere and apparently independent of the other. We are 
conscious of this wonderful correlation of forces and their 
unity and harmony. They exhibit order and the touch of an 
intelligent hand. 

Man recognizes here the presence of the same factors, that 
enter into the production of anything at his hands. He sees 
that in the making of a machine, intelligence must characterize 
every move. He argues therefore that this being true, it must 
likewise be true in the making of a world, or of worlds. If 
there is an intelligent — in fact must be — personal being behind 
the production of a sewing machine, there is no other ground 
upon which you can account for the existence of the universe, 
except upon the presence of a personal, intelligent being. 
This being we call God. 

If the presence of an invention argues to our mind an 
inventor, how about the origin of the inventor? Has he come 
by chance? If the great masterpiece of art that adorns your 



— 18 — 

walls demands an artist, Did the face of the artist come by 
chance? If your office chair needed a maker, Did the sun 
come by chance ? If the harp you play had a maker, Why not 
that most wonderful of all musical instruments, the human 
voice? Did the rose in your garden come by chance when the 
wax flower that graces your mantle-piece needed the skillful 
touch of your hand for its perfection? No; we can not accept 
these absurdities. If the existence of God is a profound 
mystery, that of Godlessness is a far greater one. 

But is the presence of mystery any argument against His 
reality? We ask, Is it any argument against the reality of 
your own being, if we find mystery in it — and no one will 
deny its presence there? Who has yet fathomed the mystery 
of the five senses — seeing, hearing, etc.? Who is it that is 
able to fathom the depths of the truth of assimilation? Has 
any one given us a rational answer to the wrinkle on the aged 
face? The presence of disease and death are loud witnesses 
to our utter failure, and show that we have not reached a 
point beyond that where we know only the processes and forms 
of physical life. Life itself still escapes us. How does the 
object which I call a book, come into my eye and then into 
my consciousness? How does the music become a part of my 
experience? At what point does the food I ate for dinner 
become a part of my body — such as nerve, blood, bone, etc.? 
How is it that the bread I ate for supper becomes a part of 
my brain, the very organ by which I try to discover the very 
mystery of bread and brain? How does it come that the mind 
is able to think upon itself? What is the relation between 
the mind and the body? Let us be consistent and face the 
facts. These are the unsolved problems and the unanswered 
questions of centuries ; they are the profound mysteries of 
human life. Every flower that casts its fragrance to the 
winds ; every leaf that quivers in the evening breeze ; every 
blade of grass that carpets the 'earth with its green, gives 
ample testimony to the presence of mystery in nature. With 
mystery then, both within man and without him, How can he 



— 19 — 

consistently call in question the existence of God? If the 
creation presented to our minds possesses facts which evade 
complete knowledge, how much more must the creator be 
clothed in a form that evades us. 

But then mystery has its value. Eliminate it from the order 
of things and what would be the fundamental position of 
man? Moral power and greatness must in the very nature of 
the case be mysterious. Otherwise it Avould be useless for 
man. A religion with the element of mystery eliminated 
would have no moral value for him, and man would in spite 
of himself go on to the task of making one that possessed this 
element. If man was other than what he is, the reverse might 
probably be true. It never can be however, so long as he 
remains in his present form of being. 

It is evident then that both from the physical and moral 
order of the universe ; both from the consciousness that orders 
the world of physical life and from that which prevails in 
the mind of man, we have, in no small manner, evidence for 
the existence of a being that we call God. We realize the 
humanness of any effort to fully account for His existence, 
for there is no one argument that can completely account for 
Him, which is to the advantage rather than the disadvantage 
of man, as we shall presently see. 

WHAT IS HE? 

This inquiry suggests a study of His nature. Let us say in 
the first place that He is not a big man. This is the idea not 
only of the child and particularly of the heathen, but of many 
who have more mature and intelligent heads upon their 
shoulders. We appreciate the difficulty for man to conceive 
of God under other than human forms. He has a body, and 
hence feels that his God must likewise have one. The Bible 
speaks of His hands, His feet, His eyes, His ears, etc., and 
man finds it difficult to conceive of God in other forms than 
those in which he conceives himself. The only type of a 
person with which he has had anything to do, is that under 



— 20 — 

the form of flesh and blood, and it is not surprising to find, 
him in the early stages of life, either moral or physical, to 
think of God as a large physical form. 

T^he statement of the church is that He is a 'person' 
separate and unique in His nature from man. This is true, 
(1st) from a study of man himself. If personality in man is 
the highest element, it must likewise be in his Maker. This 
sets God in a sphere quite His own. However when we state 
that God is a 'person,' we do not say that He is an 'individual,' 
because the fundamental basis of man's individuality is his 
physical body, and this does not characterize the being of God. 
We must be careful to note this distinction, for otherwise our 
God will be no better than that which exists for the heathen. 
Individuality as we have considered it, limits its owner. This 
can not apply absolutely to God, but to man only. Thus we 
say that God does not possess a body — at least not a physical 
one. It is true that when He became incarnate in human flesh, 
he limited Himself to its conditions and to this extent became 
an individual; this was not of necessity, but an act on His 
own free choice. 

Then again, man's sense of responsibility is ample proof 
of the personal character of his God. In the face of nature 
man has no pangs of conscience. He has no fear or remorse 
for his acts before the beast, the tree or the flower. He dioes 
not need to be told that he can not sin against the impersonal 
thing — even though it be in the form of a God — and hence 
before such is not responsible. Worship, with its offerings 
and sacrifices, is not founded on nature — or the impersonal — . 
but on the ideal of personality. 

The pagan uses nature as a basis, only because he feels 
that the being which he calls his God, knows, chooses, hates, 
etc., under her many forms. He worships the tree, not be- 
cause he identifies the tree with his god, but rather because 
he feels that his god has taken up his residence within the 
tree. Even though he limits his god to the many forms of 



— 21 — 

nature — and in this manner has many gods, — this does not 
destroy their personal character for him. 

Thus he offers sacrifice to appease their anger and to win 
their good favor. The fact that he is unable to name his god 
under the personal form — which is Jesus Christ — of the 
Christian faith is no argument against his conception of either 
a god or his personal character. This comes only when he 
grasps the unity of God as revealed in Jesus Christ. This 
unity he lost in his Fall from the true God. 

But our greatest evidence for the personality of God is the 
Bible itself. It everywhere recognizes Him under this form. 
It states that "in the beginning God created the heavens and 
the earth;" God said, "Let there be light," "I am the Lord 
thy God." Can any other than personality, create, or speak? 
Is the first personal pronoun 'I' ever used of the inpersonal? 
Then again: If God is not personal, what significance would 
John 13 :3 :17, Matthew 16 :17, Galatians 4 A have ? They would 
not only be silly, but the words of the lunatic, a travesty upon 
truth and an insult to man. 

The denial of the personality of God is the first step to the 
denial of sin. Eddyism hence to justify its denial of the 
reality of the latter, rejects the doctrine of the personal char- 
acter of God. It is a blow at the authority of God over human 
life and the enthronement of unbridled license in its stead. 
The form which God as a divine and holy personality assumes 
is likewise very evident from a survey of the Scriptures. He 
is a Trinity in Unity. This is, that in some manner — and we 
must remember that the fact is always greater than the theory 
of the fact — this nature which we call God exists as Father, 
Son and Holy Spirit: not three gods, but three persons par- 
taking of one common nature which we call God. (Matthew 
28:19). This is a profound mystery. (Collossians 2:2). "God 
in a Spirit uncreated and perfect." is the simple language by 
which the Christian church has for centuries known Him. 

"While it is true that we are not able to comprehend Him, we 
can however apprehend Him. That is, we can not know Him 



— 22 — 

in whole, but we can know Him in part. We can know Him 
not on all sides of His nature, but we can know Him on some 
sides. This is to our great advantage, strange as it may 
seem. If His ways were not past finding out, the dilemma of 
human life would be greater and its path darker than at 
present. 

That which I can comprehend — or know entirely — is not 
my master but my servant. It can not therefore be my 
helper or give assurance to my hopes. It will on the other 
hand be a burden and a care. To solve the problem in 
mathematics, is to be its master and hence greater than it. 
To know God entirely would be, to be His superior and the 
human soul has no use for such a God. The God which 1 
can master with my mind,, can not be the kind of a being that 
my needs demand. If the natural man could displace faith 
with what he calls pure and absolute knowledge, he would not 
only dethrone God, but annihilate himself. All progress is 
dependent upon man's inability to fully know truth as that is 
resident in the being of God. Otherwise man would be his 
own god, and what a god it would be. 

Man is not ignorant of God, even though he be ignorant of 
the Bible. The heathen realizes his own god after his own 
image, which accounts for its imperfect character. More or 
less we all do the same thing — as we shall learn later. To 
project our own limited and imperfect personality is to find a 
limited and imperfect god. Our idea of the true God depends 
very largely therefore upon the type of our medium through 
which we attempt to realize Him. Our present idea of Him is 
the result of reading Him, not through our own personality, 
but through the perfect one of His Son, Christ Jesus. If our 
conception of God is not satisfactory it is because we have 
been attempting to realize Him at the wrong point, and from 
the wrong source. 

Again we should know him through the forms created and 
revealed in Jesus Christ. By this we mean His attributes. 
That is we can know Him by his attitudes toward us, as these 



— 23 — 

were disclosed in the person of Jesus Christ. In this manner 
we can come very close to Him, who is love, mercy, justice, 
holy, eternal, etc. This is the most rational manner in which 
to know God. In fact it is about the only way in which we 
know anything. We know the things of nature only by their 
marks of shape, color, etc. 

This law holds true not only in the field of botany, but 
likewise in that of astronomy and in the laboratory. The 
law by which we come to know the realities of the spiritual 
world are just as reasonable and consistent as those by which 
we come to know those of the material world. The marks 
under which we know God are not ideal but real. They have 
been tested by the consciousness and experience of millions 
of people who have drawn their warrant from the pages of 
Holy "Writ. 

It is then from the world of the Word that we must proceed 
out into the world of Works, manifest on every hand, in 
search of the great Worker. If we are to apprehend Him cor- 
rectly, as He discloses Himself in the works of nature — and 
preeminently in man — it can only be when once we have sat 
at the feet of the great teacher, who was God manifest in the 
flesh. The human heart can not be satisfied with a god who 
is simply immanent in nature ; He must be likewise tran- 
scendent. If He is in nature : He must likewise be above na- 
ture, to be of any value for man. He will not be satisfied 
with a god who is less than the one portrayed on the pages of 
the Bible, and he is here indicated on every page after this 
manner. 

A being holy and righteous altogether, hating sin and find- 
ing no favor with evil, yet a being of infinite love and of 
tender mercy, loving the sinner arid wooing the evil doer with 
a tenderness and a constancy greater than a father or a 
mother: this is the God for man; it is the God of the Bible. 
He is the native atmosphere for the soul and no peace can 
come to man save as he finds it in His presence. 



— 24 — 
CONCLUSION. 

1. God exists as personal and triune. 

2. We can know Him, in part only. 

3. His highest expression is that of Love. 

4. The Bible is the source of our greatest Knowledge of Him, 



STUDY III. 

THE DOCTRINE OF MAN: THE STATE OF 
INNOCENCE. 

Genesis 2:7 — "And the Lord God formed Man of the dust of 
the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ; 
;md man became a living soul." 

The God whom we have described on a former page is not 
one given over to idleness. He is a being of industry and of 
action. The qualities which best describe Him — as love, holi- 
ness, creator, etc., are indicative of this. He therefore is not 
without witness in the earth. Many voices clamor to do Him 
honor, the greatest of which is Man. 

He is just such a creature as we would expect God to create ; 
one in perfect consistency with what we have conceived Him 
to be. We find man to be a fine compliment to the nature of 
our God. 

He is not only the reflector of the highest moral interests of 
God, but the center of every human activity. The whole 
economy of God, both moral and physical has been in his 
behalf. To know Him then, is not only highly important but 
absolutely essential. Man's view of himself colors and de- 
termines the scope and value of his entire outlook upon the 
whole of reality. Not only are his impressions governed by a 
knowledge of his history and nature, but his expressions as 
well receive the finish that gives them real worth for him. 
"Know thyself" expresses a necessity and a truth deeper 
than many of us apprehend. To know him, is to know him 
past, present and future. It is to see him in relation not 
only to a few material facts, but preeminently in relation to 
the facts which account for his origin, being and preservation 
in the world. For man to know himself, is for him to know 
not only his true place in the world of the material but to note 
his station amid the great variety of God's moral handiwork 
as well. 

25 



— 26 — 
HIS ORIGIN. 

Is he the product of natural or of supernatural Law ? Is he 
here as a result of the forces of nature as we observe them 
acting in the world about us? Or is he to be accounted for on 
other grounds? If the being of man ar*gues in behalf of the 
existence of a personal God, it is likewise true that the exist- 
ence of God argues in behalf of the origin of man. It will 
show conclusively that he is from other sources than the 
purely material ones. We therefore say that man is the pro- 
duct of the highest creative act of an absolute, personal being 
who is God. The fact is he must be. For the effect must be 
consistent with the cause and the cause must be adequate to 
the effect. Otherwise we would have disorder everywhere. 
Rational personalities cannot be accounted for on the ground 
of irrational physical forces. 

That the impersonal results are not the product of im- 
personal causes is evident in every department of human 
activity. Then why in the divine? If man is essentially a 
free moral personality — and no one but an atheist, and then 
he with reservation will deny this fact — no other conclusion 
can be reached, relative to his beginning in time. Our day 
has seen that instead of man being a subject for the labora- 
tory, he is a moral creature essentially, and a subject rather 
therefore, of divine revelation. "We have come to see that his 
creation depends not upon the nicety of a sentence or of the 
logic of a proposition, but upon the truth of this divine revela- 
tion. The character then of man does not depend upon the 
findings of the physicist, neither is his value to be estimated 
and established by science, as understood, unaided. This we 
understand only where we note his relation to his moral source. 

To determine this source we must fall back upon the ac- 
count outlined in the opening chapters of the first book of 
the Bible. Here we discover that with a simplicity that 
has baffled the wisest of earth's sons, the writer assures 
us that man comes from a different source than that at- 



— 27 — 

tributed to him in the physical process. He states that 
man was made in the image of God. (Genesis 1:26) No 
theory that even accepts 'evolution' as either a 'method' or a 
'form' for the creative activity is a safe one to follow. Even 
in the hands of God for the production of such a creature as 
man, is it consistent with either the true meaning of the term, 
or the expressed intent of the spirit that pervades the sacred 
history that records this truth. 

HOW DID GOD CREATE MAX ? 

How beautiful, because so simple, are the words of the 
sacred writer on this point: "And the Lord God formed man 
of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the 
breath of life: and man became a living soul." There is, none 
of the smack of the naturalist to it. It has the odor not of the 
laboratory, but of the sanctuary. To attempt to improve upon 
this account is mere presumption, and will end in dismal fail- 
ure. False science as well as philosophy has not added one 
ray of light to its mystery, but on the other hand has befogged 
its meaning, and made its message speak in a foreign tongue. 
This statement of Scripture announces two great facts: (1) 
Man's body was made from the dust of the ground. The He- 
brew word for 'dust 'signifies not dust of the most ordinary 
kind, but dust of a very fine quality. It was a quality of dust 
prepared by God out of which man was to be made and not 
such as is usually conceived. But this is not man: it is simply 
the house in which he lives. The Bible states that it is the 
"temple for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit." It is very 
consistent, then, to think of God selecting the very finest 
material from which to build the body of man. Man's bodv 
is the physical organism that puts him in touch with the phy- 
sical world in which he lives: it is the medium of communica- 
tion, between him as a creature of spirit and the world of 
sense. It is the material means by which the spirit — or imma- 
terial man within. — holds communication with the material 
world without. If man is to have a perfect communion with 



— 28 — 

life about him, he must have a channel for that communion 
and this is afforded in his body. 

(2) Man has a soul. It would perhaps be within the whole 
truth to say that man is a soul, for that is what he is fund- 
amentally. He is essentially a spirit and that a moral one. 
This expresses him at the highest point of his being and 
marks his true value. He is the peer in creation because he 
first embodies its glory. The presence of this quality, nay of 
this nature, is traced to that of Him who is his creator. Man 
was made in His image, and according to His likeness. This 
image consists of the following qualities: knowledge, right- 
eousness, freedom,, holiness, etc., and through which man be- 
came an heir to immortality. Thus man is not simply to come 
into immortality in some distant day : he is immortal now. 
The future will determine only the form and character of that 
immortality, but not the Fact. 

Man was created in righteousness and holiness. This 
quality however, was not something added after his creation, 
but coincident with it. It was not a patch added to his 
nature — as the Roman Catholic church teaches — but was born 
along with man. It is a part then of his very being. Man 
however was not created perfectly holy, but he was created 
innocent. His holiness was only potentially perfect : that is, 
he possessed the possibilities of perfect moral life. This we 
see evidenced in the life of the child: it is not perfect in its 
moral life, but it is innocent. 

WHY DID GOD CREATE MAN? 

Man is here not by mere chance. Neither is he the product 
of God simply as a mere display of power. His creation must 
be consistent with the nature of the Creator. The reasons for 
his being in the world must lie within the very nature of God 
Himself. This nature we saw to be expressed at its highest 
in terms of Love. 

The Bible states that "God is Love." It is here, then, that 
we find the answer to our question. Love unexpressed is to us 



— 29 — 

unthinkable. If love is to see and realize its highest, it can do 
no better than choose a medium consistent with its nature, 
through which to realize itself, and by which it can come 
into its own. Personal love then, creates a personal channel 
through which to communicate its wealth, and by which its 
true character can be reflected. Thus man stands in a repre- 
sentative capacity to God. 

By this we do not mean to state that man is to be accounted 
for on the ground of a necessity within the nature of God ; 
but rather upon the free working out of love through the 
avenue of a free personality. It was love operating along the 
true lines of its nature. It was a larger motive than a mere 
necessity that actuated God in the creating of man. It was 
that outlook upon love 's possibilities that moved Him to create 
a being who could not only receive His greatest bestowals but 
one who could return them likewise. 

CONCLUSION. 

1. Man was made in the image of God. 

2. Man is a free moral personality. 

3. Man is immortal and a creature of divine love. 



STUDY IV. 

THE DOCTRINE OF MAN: THE STATE OF 

SIN. 

Romans 3:23 — "For all have sinned, and come short of the 

glory of God." 

Man thus created was placed in a most beautiful garden, 
lie. was to have dominion over the new Creation. His environ- 
ment was such as not only to preserve him in peace with his 
maker but to afford him the satisfaction of his every desire. 
In a most prodigal manner God had surrounded him with 
everything that he needed to make him happy. Of the fruit 
of every tree of the garden he could eat — with but one 
exception. 

Scarcely had he time to drink in the beauty and meaning of 
his surroundings however than he is the center of an awful 
calamity. Upon his entry into the garden, God not only 
counseled him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good 
and Evil, but as well declared the result of such eating: it 
was to be death. And by whatsoever names we may call it 
and under whatsoever forms we may conceive it, this awful 
failure of man has perpetuated- itself down through history, 
and by this fact the man of 2000 years A. D. will be linked 
to the one of 4000 B. C. Its presence is recognized every- 
where. Society and government are forced to consider it and 
religion is but the story of man's heroic attempt to surmount 
the awful results that attended this calamity. Its moral 
wreckage is evident everywhere. 

WHAT IS IT? 

In what does it consist? What is its meaning for both God 
and man? Man was created within a moral economy and to 
this economy stands eternally related. But he was likewise 
created free: i. e. he had the power of free* choice. It was 

- , 30 



— 31 — 

his prerogative either to live within the bound's of its in- 
fluence or to be without. 

Howsoever much the author of his being might desire that 
he live within this ideal state, nevertheless it cannot be forced 
upon him. In this respect he is master of his destiny; To live 
within the circle of this order was to enjoy the personal fel- 
lowship of God and hence live in peace and harmony: to be 
without was to be alienated and away from God — a child out- 
side his father's house. Man by a free act of his own chose to 
step outside this circle of perfect environment, and hence chose 
for himself a new type of environment. God now was no 
longer his companion, no longer the light of his life. Con- 
sequently the interests of God — which were to be mutual — 
were no longer of supreme import, to him, but were displaced 
by others which were alien to his maker's highest plan. Man 
in the very nature of the case became estranged from his God, 
and all the possibilities of this estrangement began to realize 
themselves in his history. 

But the sad fact of man's fall is not simply that he fell 
away from God — which was certainly bad enough — but that 
he should do so as the victim of deception. That he should 
adopt a course that promised him not only autonomy within 
the circle in which he had been born, but equality as well, 
is the pathos of the awful tragedy. For history is replete in 
testimony that certainly is an impeachment of the motives of 
that action. 

Man's fall however incurred greater things than simply to 
make him a mere passive unit outside the bounds of perfect 
communion. Once outside this sphere of personal touch with 
his maker, man began to distrust Him. He became active in 
carrying to an issue the interests that were of highest concern 
to him now and which were to bring him power when realized. 
He was hoping to become himself the head of an order that 
would rival all others. The words of the tempter 'Ye shall be 
as gods' sounded sweet to him and when once heeded the 
whole moral tenor of his life was henceforth to be changed. 



— 32 — 

The offer of occupying a place of equality with his maker; 
the vision of being his equal, these were soon to crystalize 
into an act which would change the whole moral outlook of a 
race. He thus not only departed from God, but established 
himself upon a plain of moral supremacy. 

But unfortunately for man, this was a mere bubble which 
soon was to vanish before the white heat of truth. 

WHERE SIN WAS DESTINED TO LEAD MAN. 

Once the master of things, man soon discovered that, the 
logic Of his act was permanent abandonment of God. To 
defy self is the choosing of another God and the end of this is 
to be outside the presence of the true God. Man became the 
agent of an economy that aimed not only at the overthrow of 
man, but of God as well. The real significance of this act of 
man is not only that it is to incapacitate him for meeting the 
highest claims of his own being but it strikes a blow at the very 
foundation of life in God. It anticipated not only the defeat 
of His plans but the displacement of Him as the moral ruler 
of the world. This is the task that confronted man, and as 
party to the plan it was the vision of its aims. In his attempt 
to be 'God' man abandoned the initial purpose of his life and 
was in a sense his own god. 

In departing from God, man thus became unlike Him. 
Made at first in the divine image, he awoke to find that re- 
semblance disturbed and changed. The bond of true union is 
broken and the mark of perfect cooperation impossible. He 
is no longer able to cooperate with his maker because he is not 
like Him. "It is a great principle that recognizes that a man 
is always like his God." It is in fact a great law of human 
life, that a man becomes like that which he worships. Man in 
the Fall shifted his worship from righteousness to sin and 
thus his future was likewise changed from life to death. 
Therefore when man departed from God and patterned his 
god after himself, that is the idea that now governs nim and 
hence all the forces of decay and disease are set to work. The 



— 33 — 

awful vision that greets man is that with his abandonment of 
God, he also abandoned that which united them: His true 
spiritual nature. Man's love now has a new objective, which 
serves the only tie between him and his God. While man is able 
to grasp his possibilities, he is yet unable to realize or fulfill 
them. 

Man is now to have not a personal acquaintance with God, 
but a mere intellectual groping after Him. Man's God hence- 
forth is to be false because it is founded upon a false humanity. 
The pattern of his moral life is gone and deterioriation is 
an inevitable result. But with the going of a perfect knowl- 
edge of God, likewise goes the perfect knowledge of himself. 
A lost vision of God implies a lost vision of man. "Man then 
is a ruined instrument : a harp with a broken string ; a star 
eclipsed in the heavens; a sun robbed of its light." Paul states 
that he is a creature, "dead in trespasses and in sins." 

Man is likewise ignorant of God through the Fall. The 
creation of man implies a capacity of knowing God. Love is 
the medium of a perfect knowledge of God. To know God 
therefore is to love. And to know love is to love. But upon 
the entry of sin through the free exercise of man's will, the 
avenues of perfect knowledge were obstructed. Thus man 
has a distorted view of God. "The perfect activity of the will 
of man is conditioned upon his perfect obedience to the will 
of God." The genius therefore of the first sin, is that it is a 
doubt of divine love. It is an impeachment of the motives 
that constituted man a free creature. Man has been robbed 
of his intelligence. Where once he knew God as a son, he now 
knows Him as an alien. Once he realized in him a father; 
now a master wielding a law that is relentless and inexorable, 
eternally opposed to the new element of his life. This is the 
picture of man; a creature shorn of 'his. beauty and power; an 
object of eternal pity; the subject of divine love and com- 
passion. 



— 34 — 
CONCLUSION. 

1. Man's sin consisted in freely acting in opposition to the 
will of God. 

2. This resulted in his ignorance of and unlikeness to God 
and his unfitness to carry out the ends of his creation. 



STUDY V. 

THE DOCTRINE OF MAN: THE STATE OF 

GRACE. 

I. Peter 2:9 — "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly 

out of temptation and to reserve the unjust unto the day of 

judgment to be punished." 

Seeing that the consequences of man's act of departure from 
God entailed such disastrous results, it is evident, that left to 
himself, there is not the shadow of a possibility that he can 
regain his lost estate and place in the plain of God through 
any effort or merit of his own. This is in view of what man 
became in sin. That which has supreme value with God is 
the moral, and human effort wins His pleasure only as it 
represents moral worth in the doer of the deed. The work is 
always the revelation of the character of the worker and since 
man had become unable through his fall into sin to do any- 
thing that was good, if he is to be reinstated in the good favor 
of God, some one from the outside must intervene in -his 
behalf. If sin disqualifies him from within, righteousness from 
without must qualify him for his reinstatement with God. The 
plan of salvation then is fitted to the darkened nature of man 
and was designed in view of his inability to meet the moral 
requirements necessary for perfect fellowship with his Maker. 

But while man in sin, had taken a plunge into the dark, he 
was not always to remain there. He is not a creature made 
for the dark. It is beyond our power to conceive of the 
creature described on a former page, as being left desolate 
and alone by his God. What has been a matter of almost 
intuition with man, as evidenced in the universal practice of 
sacrifice, has been verified by the record of revelation. God 
has made provision for man's moral needs and his speedy 
return to the fold of His Father. It anticipates his complete 
recovery from sin, the victory over the condition of heart that 

35 



— 36 — 

imprisons him away from God, and his return to the state of 
divine grace. 

There however, prevails no small amount of vagueness as 
to the real significance attached to the "state of grace," for 
to many the intent of 'grace' is a closed book. The question, 
then, is, "What is implied in the word 'grace'? Is it a condi- 
tion or a relation or is it an attitude? It is all of these, and 
yet not any one of them alone. Divine grace is "the loving 
favor of God bestowed upon sinners through faith in Jesus 
Christ." It is an attitude of God then on the basis of what 
both He and Jesus Christ are, conditioned by a personal ac- 
ceptation on the part of the idividual. 

To say then that man is brought into a state of grace is to 
say that he is now within the circle of God's favor, which 
favor becomes for him, the active principle of his salvation 
upon his appropriation by faith, of the merits of the God-man. 
This means that God looks upon the sinner with pleasure 
now, not because of any merit of either thought or work of 
his own, but because he has accepted and is willing that Jesus 
Christ shall be his substitute in righteousness and moral per- 
fection before God. The moral character of God demands a 
perfect being, and man realizing this accepts Christ as his 
substitute to appear as his advocate before the bar of moral 
justice. 

THE AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 

With such a conception then of both the moral condition 
of man in sin and the design in the life of Jesus Christ, the 
most natural question is, Who is responsible for this wonderful 
plan for man's restoration to God? From the picture of man 
presented to us on every page of the Bible, it is evident if he 
is ever brought back into normal relations with his maker, it 
must come from without him. If his attitude towards his 
Creator is to be changed at all so that he can realize the ends 
for which he was brought into the world, it must be that He 
who has been sinned against must take up the broken threads 



— 37 — 

and unite them again. For he who is able to recognize that he 
has been wronged is likewise able to appreciate somewhat the 
character of the wrong, and the moral distance which it has 
placed between the doer of the wrong and the wronged. This 
is especially true of God, who looks upon sin with the same 
infinite character of knowledge and wisdom, that He does 
upon the good and righteous. 

Man unlike and distanced from God; man with the highest 
capacities of his life directed not in behalf of, but in opposition 
to the highest interests of God, is certainly not qualified to 
take the initial step towards his return to Him. Morally man 
is devoid of power to initiate any action looking toward his 
delivery from sin. The help must come from one who knows 
not only the strength of sin, but the weakness of man as well. 
No one is so qualified except God, the creator of man. 

But will He. against whom sin and sinner are arraigned 
take the first step toward Man's salvation? Is it to be sup- 
posed that He who has been wronged, — and in a manner with- 
out the grasp of the human mind — will go out after man in 
his lost state? It is not difficult to anticipate the answer of 
the natural man on this point. 

The Bible however, everywhere proceeds upon the assump- 
tion that God first went out after man and not the reverse. 
It was God who first pierced the veil of darkness and gloom 
that had settled over man ; it was infinite love reaching her 
hand down through the mists of despair to man, that he might 
again be lifted to his former height of power and dominion. 
Man was creating gods many, fashioned after the image of his 
own person, blurred and marred by sin, and in so doing was 
getting farther away from the true God. It was God who 
in Christ came to earth to present man with a new conception 
of his nature and to displace the imperfect with the perfect. 
He was the designer of the plan that when realized will make 
possible man's restoration. But for Him the history of man 
would tell quite another story, and his outlook upon the future 
would be prophetic of other things. The fact of the matter is 



— 38 — 

that the Incarnation is the most rational thing to expect, con- 
sidering what both God and man -are. 

Scarcely had man yielded to the tempter when God uttered 
a promise to the woman; later He entered into a covenant 
with Abraham; farther He gives promises to Moses; and His 
promises disclosed in prophecy are conclusive evidence that 
not man, but God conceived and carried into execution the 
way of man's return, both to Him and to the true ends of his 
being. 

"WHEN WAS REDEMPTION DETERMINED FOR MAN? 

Was it in time? Was it only after God beheld the awful 
catastrophe resulting from sin, that He was moved to mercy in 
man's behalf? Was it only after some pressure from without, 
that he was moved to intercede in man's behalf? No; God de- 
termined to save man in eternity. Before the creation of either 
man or the world, divine love saw the result of man's first 
exercise of his power of choice, and made ready a remedy. 
The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews., tells us that "Christ 
is the lamb, slain from the foundation of the world." In 
other words coincident with the plan for Man's creation, there 
was also the plan for his redemption. God in His infinite wis- 
dom saw that the creature whom He was to bring into the 
world would exercise his highest perogative — that of free 
choice — not in the direction of the highest, but in that of the 
lowest, of ends. 

That man was going to sin, was known long before his 
creation. This did not change His plan relative to the char- 
acter of the creature He would create. For if He is to make 
a man, and not a machine; if the creature of His love was to 
be a reflection of His own nature — or if he was to make a 
being in His own image — he must possess that capacity, which 
if mis-directed would inevitably lead him away from the true 
ends for which he would be created. If God is to make such a 
creature as planned, He could not make one in which there 
would not be the possibility of going counter to the highest 



— 39 — 

plan of his nature. For had God made a creature constituted 
otherwise He would have made one unlike Himself, which 
would have been none at all. If man reflects the nature of 
his Creator — and this the Bible teaches — then we must say- 
that the only creature consistent with that nature, is just 
such a being as we find in man. Taking just the limited 
knowledge of man at our command, we can say beyond ques- 
tion that if God — such as we find imperfectly reflected in man 
— is the creator of man, He must likewise be his redeemer, 
since He is not only in touch with him through a personal 
acquaintance with him, but identified with him in no small 
manner. 

There are then, points in common of the most fundamental 
importance between God and man, which make the author- 
ship of salvation, to originate with God beyond all question. 

The cross then is a reality in the plan of God long before 
its revelation to either the world or man in time. He who is 
infinite in love is also infinite in wisdom, and out of this He 
saw not only man created and environed with the highest 
good, but likewise saw him yielding to that which brought 
him into ruin. The plan of salvation then is not confined to 
the history of man. Its nativity is to be found in the history 
of God which is the story of eternity. The call of man ruined, 
was heard by love eternal and this call was answered by the 
gift in Jesus Christ, who through pain and suffering, repre- 
sented man. making possible his entry into divine favor, and 
to the realization of the ends of his being, which were the ends 
of divine love. 

CONCLUSION. 

1. That man is unable to effect his own salvation. 

2. That God must in the very nature of the case, have 
been the author of Salvation. 

3. That the plan for man's redemption was coincident with 
that of his creation. 



STUDY VI. 
THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST: HIS PERSON. 

John" 1 :14. — "And the "Word was made flesh, and dwelt 
Virion g us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the 
only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth." 

In the study of Jesus Christ as the author of salvation, we 
are treading upon Holy ground. We are to contemplate the 
jprofoundest mystery of God's dealings with man. It is the 
mystery of love and love is always a mystery. The mystery of 
the incarnation is the mystery of divine love giving heed to 
the call of despairing love in man; it is a still greater one 
when we contemplate the precise form which He assumed in 
heeding the call. Jesus Christ as God made flesh, dwelling 
in time and among men : this is the thought that staggers the 
mind and overthrows reason when left to itself. 

WHAT HE IS. 

This has been not only for near 2000 years the perennial 
question for man, but will be till the end of time. That "We 
are learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the 
truth," has special pertinence at this point. For man it is the 
burning question of life. Where the head has wavered under 
the weight of its moral import, the heart has gone fortli and 
bulwarked itself with hope and conviction. His witnesses 
are to be found in every clime and under every flag. Man 
has given Him testimony, not only in the sacrifice of gold, but 
of life. His witness has been sealed, not by poverty and 
hardship alone, but by blood. The church of the 20th cen- 
tury is the gift of his devotion and the civilization of 2000 
years the fruit of his faith in Him whom he has worshiped as 
God. 

His Names. 

With God a name signifies and characterizes its bearer above 
everything; it stands for quality in character. It represents 

40 



— 41 — 

an inner permanent value and not an outer fleeting fancy. 
The names by whiclf He is known therefore, in the flesh are 
no empty and meaningless shells: they stand for positive 
marks of worth and value: — Jesus Christ. ''And thou shalt 
call His name Jesus : for He shall save His people from their 
sins." Matthew 1:21. 

(1) Jesus. It means savior. It carries with it the ideal of 
redeemerhood. It not only portrays a relation of God with 
man, but the power of sealing this relation as well. In the 
person of Jesus, God has come into a new and peculiar re- 
lationship Avith humanity. It means that in His person, God 
dwells and holds communion with a fallen race. This is the 
bond that unites Him, unique and distinct, with a race real- 
izing ends abnormal and inconsistent with those of its creation. 

(2) Christ. It means the annointed one. The one set apart ; 
the Messiah. Through this name He is identified with Him 
who comes to fulfill the promises of the past, by the ac- 
complishment of the divine purpose toward men. It marks 
the man Jesus not simply as He who is to accomplish the will 
of God in behalf of a ruined creature, but that it will be 
done by obedience to that will. 

These names signify that in realizing their truth, a three- 
fold function is disclosed: (1) Prophet, (2Timothy 3:15:17^ ; 
(2) Priest, (Hebrews 7:25:28); (3) King, (Acts 2:25:38). As 
prophet He is the great teacher — and this was ever the great 
function of the prophet. As Priest : He not only offered the 
sacrifice but was that sacrifice. As King : He rules over us in 
the kingdom of grace. 

His Natures. 

These are two : Human and Divine. 

(1) Human. He was true man; possessed a human soul 
and body and was subject to the human wants, as hunger, 
thirst and fatigue. He had a human mother, being born of 
the Virgin Mary. This being born by Jesus is known as the 



— 42 — 

"Incarnation." He grew to manhood and played the part of 
a real human individual. 

One element however distinguishes Him as unique; He was 
without sin. He prayed, "Father forgive them not me": He 
said "Ye must be born again": but not himself. He went 
into the temple, but not to offer sacrifice. His human nature 
was the ideal and normal one. This factor places Him above 
man in the field of morality and moral possibility, and was 
the lacking element in human life and the perquisite to man's 
final recovery of his lost dominion. 

(2) Divire. He is not only man but also God. This we 
discover in the names attributed to Him (John 1:2;14); in 
the qualities or attributes ascribed to Him (John 1:15;8:57- 
58) ; in the quality of His works (John 1:3) ; in the worship 
enjoined for Him, (Philippians 2:8;11) in the Bible. If His 
manhood was true, His divinity was equally real and true. 
(Romans 9:5; John 5:23). The term 'divinity' must not be 
confused with that same quality which was ascribed to the 
heathen gods of past times. This quality ascribed to Christ is 
based on the fact that He was first Deity : i. e. That he was not 
simply a God-endowed man, but God essentially. 

He is not simply a great man. He is the great God. Keep 
this distinction well in mind. Do not let it go. In the In- 
carnation, the eternal Word, did not lay aside the essential 
facts of His deity. He only changed the form -of their manifes- 
tation. He is not so much God and man as He is God in, though, 
and as man. He was accommodating Himself to the plain of 
man's apprehension. Otherwise Christ degenerates into a 
mere teacher of His age — of which there were many — whose 
message has only local value at its best. If He is not God 
manifest in the flesh — the Immanuel of prophecy — but only 
God indwelling in a man; if He is not "the way," but only 
the 'way shower,' then He is not and cannot be the savior 
from sin and not in any sense the promised redeemer foretold 
and expected. 



— 43 — 

He is the God-Man. As such He is the gateway between God 
and man. In Him, humanity finds its way back to God, and 
in Him God finds His way back to man. He is the meeting 
place for both man and God. He is man's perfect God because 
He is perfect divinity for man: He is God's perfect man be- 
cause He is the ideal humanity. In other words instead of 
man attempting to find His God on the plain of his own 
imperfect moral personality, he now finds Him through the 
perfect one of Jesus Christ. Instead of God reckoning with 
man on the plain of his ruined humanity, He now has another 
basis : that of the God-man. Thus he is not only the crown of 
humanity for God, but He is the illumination of the divine life 
of God for man. 

He differs then from man, not in degree but in kind. He is 
not the image of a good man — just a little better than man — 
but that of God Himself. To see Him is to see God. His 
distance from man is not to be measured therefore by the 
human standards of fallen man, but by the moral standards 
consistent with His own being. 

It is from such a conception of Christ that man has come 
through these years to love God. While misconception of 
God has bred hatred for Him in man, however to behold in 
Jesus the true God, is to change all the currents of His life 
from the direction of hatred to that of love. This however 
now adds to his responsibility, for it is one thing to hate God 
of whom man is ignorant; it is another thing to do so in the 
face of knowledge of Him. 

The form assumed by God in coming to the earth was 
necessitated by the character of the task to be performed. 
He identified Himself with human nature and this afforded 
the medium for His saviorhood. He must assume the plan of 
humanity if He would realize his plan for salvation. The 
elements lacking in man to effect his own union with God, 
were supplied in Christ's nature. If man was unlike God in poinl 
of moral quality; if he was ignorant of Him as respects his 
mind; if he was helpless as respects his power of obedience, it 



— 44 — 

is in Christ that man finds all these abiding in wonderful per- 
fection. This is the view of scripture since on the one hand it 
conceives Him as existing on an equality with God, (Philippians 
2:6 "Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to 
be equal with God") while on the other it recognizes Him as a 
servant (Philippians 2:7, "And took upon Himself the form of 
a servant and- was made in the likeness of man") who came to 
minister but not to be ministered unto. (Matthew 20:28, 
"Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but 
to minister"). 

It is a singular fact that within the entire history of man, 
God was bringing the race back to Him through one man : viz. 
Abraham, Moses, etc. But in the fullness of time, He sends the 
perfect Man, to effect a condition of moral return to Him in 
the person of His Son. It is in Him, in whom the fullness of the 
Godhead dwelt bodily, that we are to find our real self, "for 
we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." 

That we have in the person of Jesus Christ .one who was in 
all points human — even being tempted as we — , but in all 
essentials divine, is the testimony not of sight but of faith. 
Man must accept His revelation, both from the Bible and as it 
has operated in the near 2000 years of its history, vindicating 
itself at every point, although he may not be able to fathom 
the depths of its mystery. It is the infinite effectual disclosure 
of divine love and to reveal love is to reveal holiness, the 
mystery of which the Apostle Paul tells us is great. The mys- 
tery of the God-man is the mystery therefore of love. As such 
He has been the height of the moral ideal of the world : He is 
the moral basis that has supported a civilization unprecedented 
in the annals of man. He is not only the light that lighteneth 
every man coming into the. world, but the source of his power 
and progress while in the world. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

1. Under the name Jesus Christ He occupies a threefold 
office (1) Prophet, (2) Priest, (3) King. 



— 45 — 

2. That He is a divine-human person, known better as the 
God-man. 

3. That the union of the two natures is perfect and complete. 



STUDY VII. 

THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST: HIS LIFE. 

I. Cor. 15:57. — "But thanks be to God, which giveth us the 
victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 

Any attempt to translate the elements that constitute a truly 
great man by the use of words, phrases and sentences must be 
characterized by a most signal failure. The facts that afford 
the back ground of such a life may be visible, but the power 
that enables us to grasp them is not so; it evades every at- 
tempt to prescribe it. It evades every attempt of man to con- 
fine it to his few mechanical forms, and mocks him as he fails. 

This is most applicable when we are called to estimate and 
study the God-man. His life as well as the life of any other 
individual is not to be estimated by a study of a few external 
facts. Its character is accounted for upon entirely different 
grounds. In fact the advent of Jesus Christ, saw the advent 
of a new language. It was the language not of the tongue 
but of the heart. It was the task of this language to translate 
the hidden feelings, hopes, faith, etc., of His heart into the 
gospel of the heart of man. But the person of Christ is the 
power of that gospel. It is that gospel, and to know it is to 
know Him. To grasp its relation to the soul and its significance 
for the being of man is to know therefore the place of the 
Christ, and to be able to estimate Him correctly. 

HIS STATE OF HUMILIATION. 

He was in the form of a servant. This is a trite phrase, evi- 
dent on every page of the Bible. That He laid aside His 
riches, His glory, His joy, to be the man of sorrows, so poor 
that He said: "the foxes have holes and the birds of the. air 
have nests but the Son of Man has not where to lay His head, ' ' 
Matthew 8:20 is a fact well attested in sacred history. Paul 
tells us that He 'emptied' Himself, and in these few words 

46 



— 47 — 

states the great mystery of the surrender made by the Word, 
in assuming human nature. 

This we know that He who was co-existent and co-equal with 
God in assuming the nature of man, became also subject to its 
conditions. i In the Incarnation then the divine Word mani- 
festing Himself under the form of human life willingly as- 
sumes the 'form of a servant' in the likeness of men. 

The God-man then — as one person but two natures united, — 
in the state of self-renunciation laid aside the full exercise of 
His power which He possessed before the Incarnation. The 
divine nature of Christ, then was limited only as it chose to be. 
He put aside nothing that was essential to His being, but 
simply willed to allow the natural properties of the Christ to 
predominate as He pleased. This was noted in the display of 
His supernatural power in miracles, in which He showed forth 
His glory. 

Thus when He assumed the physical He became subject — to 
that extent — to its limitations, which in the end was to mean 
suffering. This element was prominent throughout His life. 
In fact so much so that we now identify Him with the one 
spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, as "the man of sorrows and 
acquainted with grief." (Isaiah 53:3). 

He suffered not only the privations of ordinary human com- 
forts: not only the pangs of pain in Pilate's court and on the 
cross; but much more the sufferings of the mind and heart. 
It was the suffering of one who knew the awful issue of sin in 
the life of man, and his utter inability to evade its results, 
unaided. It was the suffering of one with a superior knowl- 
edge, who beheld the calamity which had befallen God's 
creature bringing the darkest ignorance. The sufferings of 
the body are one: those of the heart and mind quite another 
thing. It was the pain of a divine insight into human nature 
away from God. In short it was the anguish of the God-man. 
Disowned by His own kin; deserted by His own disciples; 
openly opposed by the religious leaders of His day; these are 
the burdens that crushed His heart. 



— 48 — 

The time from the scene of the temptation in the wilderness, 
to Pilate's Hall is to be measured not in terms of days, months 
or even years, but in heart-aches. It is no small distance from 
the temple room to the cross. It is the road of conflict. 

Unable to seize Him in the light, the powers of evil chose 
the night-time, and reveling in their supposed victory, carry 
Him off to the cruel cross to die. This is the climax of His 
sufferings. It is the point where focalize all the powers of sin 
for their final attempt at distraction. To the natural eye they 
seem to gain the victory. He is nailed to the cross, and after 
a period of suffering — not pretended but most real — He dies. 
It was a real death ; it was neither a pretention nor a mere 
swoon, but in perfect harmony with His plan foretold. (John 
19:33:34). This fact is not only borne out in all history but 
running throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation 
there is the scarlet thread of His blood shed at the time of 
His death. 

He was buried publicly in Joseph's tomb, guarded by a huge 
stone upon which was the seal of the Roman Emperor. He 
was not simply hid away in a secluded spot by his disciples, 
as some assert. Here He was to lie till the Resurrection Morn. 

HIS STATE OF EXALTATION. 

It is one thing to follow the Christ as He walks before 
the eyes of men; it is quite another to accompany Him into 
that silent country of the dead. In the Apostles' Creed we 
read that "He descended into hell." To many this has been 
an unpleasant thought, In fact to some it is revolting and 
they have refused to utter these words in public. But we are 
sure this attitude is either due to ignorance or to prejudice, 
and when once we note its basis and import, none will main- 
tain this attitude. In I. Peter 3:19, we read, "He went and 
preached unto the spirits in prison." That it was the realm 
of the lost to which He went, is signified by the word 
' prison. ' Its use also carries with it the mark- of finality. 
There is no parole from this prison, neither does it have doors. 



— 49 — 

It is a prison, fashioned not after civil, but after moral law. 
Thus it can't refer to the pious dead in any sense of things. • 

(2) The word 'preached' also is significant. The word used 
is not that for the proclamation of good news, but that for the 
announciation of judgment and authority. It is not the mes- 
sage of salvation for the inhabitants of 'the prison' but of 
victory and triumph for the Christ. 

Then again : no act of the Christ so beautifully and so force- 
fully interprets Him. It is just such an act as we would sup- 
pose him to be capable of doing. Anything less than this 
would be for us inconsistent with what we know Him 
to be. The thought is not simply that He 'descended into 
hell' but that He could go there and come out again. Hell 
could not hold Him because of His moral quality. 

It was the victory of good over evil. Hell can't hold us, 
when once we appear in the light of His perfection. It is no 
question on our character to stand in the presence of evil; it is 
however, when we countenance and engage in the same. Thus 
it is that we rise in the moral life. It was the triumph of 
perfection over imperfection, and this is the same law for us to 
the attainment of divine favor. It is the way for better things 
for every man. The awful fact of hell is not that we j^kould 
go there simply, but that we must remain there eternally 
abandoned from the presence of God, because we lack moral 
quality to get out. 

This is the kind of a Christ your soul needs and His descent 
into hell, magnifies Him rather than belittles Him. He who 
can go into hell and come forth crowned with purity and holi- 
ness, deserves not censure but praise and worship at your 
hands. The Creed that brings this act of the Christ to your 
attention should occupy a large place in your life. For if 
we are to be conquerors over hell, death, and the grave, in 
the final issue of our life, it can be only that He who came 
to redeem us, has first procured this victory for us. 

The final approval of this act of victory, is evidenced in 



— 50 — 

that of the Resurrection. This is the cardinal fact of Chris- 
tianity. Upon its truth we stand or fall. It is the foundation 
stone of a true religion, and distinguishes the religion of Jesus 
Christ from all others. No founder of another religion has 
passed through this experience. It is the history of Christ 
alone, and characterizes Him as the only true gospel. 

The resurrection fact, is truly a fact and not a mere fancy. 
It is not the creation of delusion ; neither is it the product of 
fanaticism. That Jesus Christ arose from the dead, is at- 
tested not only by the attitude of the early disciples, '.rat upon 
this experience the church was founded, as well. This organi- 
zation founded upon this fact has now for near 2000 years 
withstood the most venomous assaults of evil men, and could 
not have survived. Still possessing her present power upon 
any other basis. This fact is and cannot be a mere myth. To 
assert this as the account for the resurrection, is not only to 
evade the real truth but to necessitate a bit of mental jugglery, 
in surmounting the facts built around it, more perplexing. 

Its significance for us is beyond computation. We are not 
able to fully determine its value. We are however assured 
that it was God's visible approbation of the finished work of 
the Son. (Romans 8:34). It is upon this basis that the faith 
of mankind rests. (John 20:28). That humanity looks out 
into the future with hope and peace, is accounted for by its 
loyalty to this fact of the victory of the Christ. (I. Cor. 
15:19:20). 

Neither is man's faith and hope resting simply on a mere 
mental or so-called spiritual resurrection. It is founded on a 
physical coming forth of Jesus Christ from the grave. To 
think of it otherwise is to rob Him of His victory, history of its 
Christ and the soul of. its Savior. For if His resurrection is 
only a spiritual and not a physical one, what assurance have 
we that his atonement was real? These facts are linked to- 
gether and to destroy one is to invalidate for man, the other. 

The crown of His life was His ascension into Heaven and 
marks the last step in His exaltation. It was to His disciples 



— 51 — 

the assurance of His larger presence with them through His 
divine Spirit. The Christ humbled as a servant, exalted above 
all things: He is your Christ and Lord. 

CONCLUSION. 

1. That Christ assumed two states: That of Humiliation: 
that of Exaltation. 

2. As a servant, He offered Himself up as the "Lamb to 
take away sin." 

3. As conqueror, He descended into Hell, arose the 3rd day 
and completed His triumph by ascending to the right hand of 
the Father. 



STUDY VIII. 

THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST: HIS WORK. 

I| John 3:5.— "And ye know that he was manifested to take 
away our sins; and in him is no sin." 

The work must always reveal the worker. The finished 
product is the measure of the producer. The. deed is the child 
of the thought and 'as a man thinketh in his heart so is he. ; 
It stands for a concrete expression of ^.the real qualities that 
compose the workman. On the other hand it is also true that 
the work judges the worker. It is the tribunal of his life. 
Every deed has moral value and before this he either stands 
or falls ; is either vindicated or condemned. In the work then 
we have a true picture and revelation of the worker. That is, 
the work is the interpreter of the worker and to know it 
intelligently is likewise to know him also. It is equally true 
that the greater the qualities thus revealed in a workman, the 
greater will be our expectancy; the greater his responsibility. 

Not simply by one work either can any man be judged; he 
must be viewed by the sum total of his life. In the history of 
the Christ, this state was reached in the consummation of His 
work on the cross. This is His great work; it is the work of 
his life. 

The most rational fact about the whole life of the Savior is 
that act which qualifies Him for Saviorhood; and that is the 
atonement. Had His life ended with an act of a lower spiritual 
significance, His power for the human heart would not have been 
that of God, but of a mere man. His influence would not have 
been such as to evoke worship and obedience but simply 
admiration and respect. In other words the result on the 
cross, is most consistent with what we have conceived Him to 
be. For man's conception of the results of -the cross is de- 
termined very largely by the form under which he conceives 
the Christ. If the cross vindicates the claims of the Christ, He 

52 



— 53 — 

is no less the interpreter of the cross. If He is the personal 
presence of God in human form, the cross is the only logical 
conclusion of His life which we could expect. We need not be 
told that the natural mind is enmity against God since any 
claim to supernatural character is considered as mere pre- 
sumption. The work of Christ as affected on the cross, is to 
be interpreted then as His work as the God-man, and its 
value for us is the value of redemption. 

THE REASON FOR REDEMPTION. 

The great question is always: Why did God become flesh 
and take the initial step— for this He did beyond doubt — to 
remedy the ruin of the fall? If His creature whom He had 
created to be a perfect representative — as we learned in the 
study of man — deliberately violates the law which made him 
so, why should He attempt any plan by which he could be 
reinstated? In other words, what elements are there in God 
which prompted the plan of reconciliation ? 

Man was created on a basis of character. It was a char- 
acter, not in antagonism but in harmony with that of the 
creator constituted so as to realize this ideal; but now the 
direction of his life is in another way. He was to mirror the 
true image of God; now he is revealing that of another. He 
Avas created to grow into likeness with God; now. his life is 
unlike that of God. In other words fallen man is a living 
falsehood. He is man in caricature. Instead of manifesting 
God as light and love, he now casts a shadow upon His 
divine purpose. There is now in the divine economy no need 
for man, and if reason be consulted, his end should be con- 
summated. If God still needs an instrument of illumination 
He can make another. There is neither in the realm of justice 
nor of righteousness simply any reason for his redemption. 
We must go deeper for the answer to our question; it lies 
within the nature of God Himself. Tt is that He is 'Lovs'. 
(John 3:16). 

While it is true that God is not bound to do anything for 



— 54 — 

man, and hence eliminates any attempt on his part to boast, 
yet there is a sense in which He mnst redeem man. If the 
motive behind the creation of man had been other than divine 
love, it would have been different with the future of fallen 
man. It was fortunate that Man's God was other than the 
being which in sin he conceived Him to be. The words of 
Paul, "but when the fullness of time was come God sent forth 
His Son." Galatians 4:4 are not only the explanation of the 
mystery of divine grace, but also of the fall. 

HOW HE REDEEMED ME. 

The task before Him is evident from what we know of man 
in the state of sin. The problem of divine grace is therefore 
that of the departure of man from the source of divine life. 
Hence the Bible speaks of the form assumed by the act of 
redemption as a "reconciliation" (II. Cor. 5:18:19) the root 
idea of which is, the restoration of personal relations between 
parties hitherto estranged. It anticipates an explanation of 
the human catastrophe, which involved the rebellion of a 
human will against the claim of the divine Creator. 

This act must be conceived as the act of God and is so 
stated in the Bible. (Acts 20 :28, Eomans 1 :4) (II. Cor. 4 A :6) . 
It is this fact which seals our conviction on the deity of Jesus 
Christ. It was God in Christ, that was effecting the recon- 
ciliation. Thus we know it was not by silver or gold. (I. Peter 
1:8) ; not by the sacrifice of goats and calves (Heb. 9:12) ; not 
by any merit or effort offered by man (Ephesians 2:8) ; but 
through the precious blood of Christ. (Acts 20:28, Hebrews 
12, Ephesians 1:7, Colosians 1:14, Peter 1:19). But blood is 
life, and in the shedding of His blood He also gave His life a 
ransom for man. (Matthew 20:28, Galatians 2:20). It was 
at an infinite price that He has purchased your soul, and on 
this basis asks your worship and obedience. I. John 1 :7, He- 
brews 9:22, Cor. 6:20). It was at the cost of suffering that 
your soul was brought back into favor with God. If this 



— 55 — 

element was to perfect Him as man's savior it must be also 
through this that you shall be qualified to stand before the 
Son of Man. 

The sinner justified is now a restored son because the action 
that has realized this state for him, has been that of the eternal 
God Himself. It is this fact that allows us not only to state in 
the language of revelation, that He was our substitute on the 
cross affecting that which we could not for ourselves, (Gala- 
tions 1 :4:, I. Timothy 2 :6, Titus 2 :14) but in the words of rea- 
son, as well, when we note the place of God in the redemptive 
act and fact. 

Redemption finds its parallel in Creation. (Galatians 6:5, 
John 1:18). If the morality of the latter was in the fact that 
'God saw that it was good' the justice of the former is justified 
in the ac + of the sending of His son, who was delivered up for 
us and our sins. 

This plan for divine grace however became effective through 
obedience. The Father's favor became possible for man 
through the perfect obedience of His Son. His right to be 
called the savior of men, depended entirely upon this. Obedi- 
ence on the part of the first Adam would have kept him within 
the bounds of that favor : obedience must now regain it for 
him, through his substitute, the last Adam. Jesus Christ as 
man's representative: as his substitute, must through obedi- 
ence secure what he lost by his disobedience. If we can con- 
ceive of the departure of man from God in disobedience as 
being perfect, it is most rational to conclude that now only 
through a perfect obedience can he be reinstated. 

This is the very manner in which scripture views it, and is 
the method stated on its pages. This laAv is however, not a 
new one but the assertion of one as old as man. Upon it not 
only is man's relation to the moral facts of his being depend- 
ent, but those toward society and the state as well. There are 
no rights to liberty, happiness, etc., outside of obedience. 
When this quality no longer marks the department of man, his 
rights cease and he becomes a subject for discipline. Not 



— 56 — 

only does his place in their favor depend upon this quality 
but his place in the divine favor as well. You can see the 
analogy therefore between the relation man sustains to the 
state and society, and that which marks his place, in the plan of 
God. 

The place of Christ in the plan of redemption, let us re- 
member, was not imposed upon Him. It was willingly as- 
sumed. As the first Adam willingly chose the law of death; 
He now as the last Adam in a similar exercise of His will, 
chooses life. His sacrifice then was vicarious. To deny the 
atoning value of his death is to rob it of every vestige of value 
for man. If it was only the revelation of love — and I care not 
how great that may have been — then it was not that which 
could bring peace for the soul. Its effect upon the soul was 
to be more than a great persuasive. To conceive of the work 
of Jesus Christ simply as an intensive revelation of divine love 
is to describe an experience taking place in man as a result of 
His death, rather than giving the form and value of His death 
before God. It was to have value with man, only because it 
first had value with God. The one to be considered is not man 
but God in our thought upon the nature of the work of the 
Christ. 

"If the cross is not a redemption it is not a revelation either." 
That God can be both just and the justifier of the sinner; that 
man in his alien state of sin can be touched into the newness 
of life by God, is to be accounted for not on the. grounds of 
an elegant display of divine love, but rather tluit He was 
taking your place as a propitiation for your sins. (Romans 
3 :25). The outshining of love might bring men to remorse but 
not to repentance. "We must remember that the act of Christ 
was His act in behalf and instead of man and not something 
independent of him. 

This is the secret of those words on the cross "My God! My 
God! "Why hast thou forsaken me?" Aside from the fact 
that He was taking your place and mine, they are without 
meaning — if. they are not blasphemy. He has for the moment 



— 57 — 

forsaken Jesus. This is evident in view of the attitude of God 
toward the bearer of sin : it was abandonment and this was the 
position Christ occupied as the sin-bearer for man. 

He was standing in the light of defensive love — just where 
man must stand — and only after He vindicates His perfection 
is he accepted in the victory of the resurrection. He was 
taking the place of the sinner and must suffer all that sin 
brought ; not extensive but intensive ; but that is the nature of 
sin. It was not that man had committed many sins and now 
Christ must suffer in proportion ; it was for sin and not sins that 
He suffered. 

The issue of one sin then is not the meaning of His death: 
It is the same as many. The inevitable issue of sin is to be 
God-forsaken. If sin is an attempt to overthrow God as King, 
then its reward will be its own overthrow. In these words we 
find Jesus testing the meaning of His mission as the sin-bearer 
for man. He has taken hold of sin and assumed its responsi- 
bility for man, and hence must share in its harvest. Paul an- 
nounces the same fact when he says, "Him who knew no sin 
He made to be sin in our behalf: that we might become the 
righteousness of God in Him). (II. Corinthians 5:21). 

As the substitute then, of man before the divine law of 
holiness He tastes the penalty — shall we say of hell, for to be 
God-forsaken is certainly hell — that your sin might not be 
reckoned against you and that iioav through Him you might 
have access to the Father. 

All through this study there has run a question, not visible 
but nevertheless apparent. It is, the one which inquires as 
to the reason for the lapse of time between the fall of man and 
the time of deliverance. In other words why did God wait so 
many years before He sent His son to man to redeem him? 
Sin brings moral darkness. Many lessons were to be learned 
before man could stand the light of the divine person of 
Christ. What is the secret of polytheism? Why the tendency 
of man to make unto Himself many gods? Man had lost the 
sense of the unity of God, and it took years of trial and 



— 58 — , 

hardship for the people of Israel to learn the truth, and 
abandon their many gods for the true one. God's perfect 
instrument of manifestation had been ruined, and this fact 
stayed the hand of reconciliation. 

There are many Christs, but there is only one true Christ ; 
it is the Christ of the Cross, atoning for the sin of the world. 
If His act of redemption is a profound mystery, let us thank- 
fully accept it as that which places us within the possibility 
of eternal life. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

1. That I am saved by the free act of God's love. 

2. That this is effected through the suffering of Jesus Christ, 
as my substitute. 

3. That it was a sacrifice of life, having merit with God and 
not a mere display of love disguised to subdue the heart into 
submission. 



STUDY IX. 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

John 14:16 — "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give 
you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for- 
ever." 

It is one thing to know the truth as a matter of information ; 
it is quite another to know it as a matter of experience. The 
mere knowledge of the history of Christ does not by any 
means constitute a man a Christian. The world has no small 
number of men who know the Bible perhaps better than many 
who call themselves the children of God. But their knowledge 
is nothing but mere information. 

Paul tells us that "the natural mind cannot know the things 
of God because they are spiritually discerned." The organism 
by which he is to come into possession of the truth is out of 
order. Something is needed to pierce the veil of man's dark- 
ened understanding and illumine the pathway of divine truth, 
which will bring not simply a mere knowledge of facts, but a 
personal appropriation of its responsibility and fruit. Other 
wise as we shall learn, the effects of the life and death of 
Christ will have no value for us save as a mere incident in 
history. 

It is the office of the third person of the Holy Trinity, the 
Holy Ghost, to be unto man this light to blaze the way through 
his moral darkness to the light of God's truth. That His 
supreme mission has been misunderstood and even neglected 
in its application, no one need be told. "We have conceived of 
Him in every possible manner but the right one. We have 
been so concerned with the merits, etc., of Christ's life and 
death that we have neglected correctly to understand the 
character of the agency by which these facts are made known 
to us. Instead of walking in the Spirit "who searcheth all 
things yea even the deep things of God" we have proceeded 

59 



— 60 — 

on our own initiative and our own resources and the result is 
that to many of us the religion of Christ is either a puzzle or a 
mere bundle of theories. It is neither in any sense of the 
term; it is a profound fact available for the salvation of the 
soul when appropriated correctly. 

HIS PERSON. 

Jesus spoke of him as the comforter. This was spoken to 
personal creatures. He cannot be then a mere influence — even 
though a moral one; He must be a person. He is not a mere 
mode either in which God manifests Himself, no more than the 
Son is a form or mode of revelation of the Father. He is 
characterized on the pages of the Bible by names, acts, affec- 
tions and words which designate Him as God. That he is 
influenced by our attitude toward the truth in Christ, is evi- 
denced by the admonition "Not to grieve the Holy Spirit." 
He must then be a person for you need not be told, the im- 
possibility of grieving an impersonal something; it is only 
personalities that are thus affected. 

The same referred to — that of a Comforter — likewise sug- 
gests the idea of a person. While present with the apostles, 
Jesus had been their comfort; and He was a person. Now 
another comforter was to take His place and be unto them 
what He has been. It is evident that the promise of a Com- 
forter would have had no significance to them, had they con- 
ceived Him in other than personal terms. It is hardly likely 
that they would have tarried in Jerusalem : it is more unlikely 
that they would have withstood the persecution of the cen- 
turies on the experience of an impersonal power. They must 
have realized the Comforter promised by Jesus, after a manner 
similar to that by which they came to estimate Christ Him- 
self. 

He is not another being then, but is in Hjs nature true God. 
(Matthew 28 :19, II. Cor. 13 :14, Acts 4 :3 A) . The writers here, 
you will note, speak of the Holy Spirit not in the neuter but 
in the masculine gender; it is not 'it' but 'He.' It is evident 



— 61 — 

that one who teaches, loves, exhorts, consoles, rebukes, and 
prays cannot be included in any conception that identifies Him 
with the exercise of a law, working on the plane of mere phy- 
sical force. 

HIS WORK. 

We are very apt to emphasize the place of Christ to the 
extent that we lose sight of that occupied by the Holy Spirit. 
That He has not only a place, but a very important one, is 
most clearly indicated by Christ Himself. This he outlined in 
these words: "And when He is come, He will reprove the 
world of sin, and of righteousness; and of judgment: of sin 
because they believe not on Me : of righteousness because I go 
to my Father and ye see Me no more ; of judgment, because the 
prince of this world is judged." (John 16:8-11). Also "And 
He shall glorify Me : for He shall receive of mine and shall 
show it unto you." (John 16:14). That the Holy Spirit shall 
guide all men into the truth by presenting and interpreting 
the truth is tlie simple form which His mission assumes. To 
the extent then that we belittle or misunderstand His office, 
do we deprive ourselves of the full benefits that are to be ours 
through the merits of Christ's death and resurrection. 

His work then in the world is, (1) To convict men of sin. 
It is the call of man from a life of sin, to one of righteousness. 
To urge men by the conviction of sin to forsake sin. This is 
that still small voice that has prompted you to think on holy 
and sacred things and has urged you to accept their claims. 

(2) To enlighten sinners: We noticed in the study of man 
the inability of man because of his beclouded mind, to see 
light in its true meaning. That because of the impaired 
medium of vision, light had become the very opposite, or 
darkness. He was ignorant of God and sinning because not 
knowing Him. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to dispell 
this cloud that has come across the moral vision of man that 
he may not only see the day, but see it in its plan for him. 
(Acts 26:18). This is accomplished by holding up the Christ 



— 62 — 

' ' who is the light of the world. ' ' If man is all darkness, it will 
take the light to transform that darkness. This is not onry 
the mission of Christ in the world but that of the Spirit as 
well. The sun does not create the grass that carpets the earth 
with its green : it simply floods the earth with its heat and light 
and the response is the grass. Man yet possessing the ability 
of response, when brought into touch by the Holy Spirit, with 
those moral elements akin to those composing God, responds. 
In the presentation of Jesus Christ we find those elements, so 
that when we are brought face to face with Him through "le 
Holy Spirit, there is started in man a new consciousness which 
unfolds into the flower of a new creature through faith ; if 
rejected however, these work the very opposite. It is then by 
the Holy Spirit holding up before the bars that imprison the 
mind and heart of man, the Christ as the source of true free- 
dom that man emerges into the state of liberty, and the i.i- 
heritance of a holy and righteous life. 

(3) To sanctify man. This does not simply mean absolute 
holiness or sinlessness. The modern error here is great. "To 
sanctify" primarily means "to set apart to a holy work." Too 
much of the modern sanctification is not moral. It is but 
physical. It is not necessarily an evidence of a perfect heart ; 
it may be the outbreak of an imperfect lot of nerves. To set 
us apart to the work for which we were brought into the 
world — this is the goal of the agent of sanctification. Once 
our lives followed the lines of self and sin ; now they through 
this setting apart, follow those of God and righteousness. Tt 
is in giving another direction to life, by presenting the true 
object, both of our life and our love, that the Holy Spirit finds 
the true sphere of His mission and realizes the ends for which 
He was sent into the world. 

The forms which this new life assumes and by which they 
are known in scripture are (1) Conversion. This is the "Work 
of the Holy Spirit by which, through faith in Christ, we turn 
from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God." 
(I. Peter 2:25). (2) Justification. This "is the act of God 



— 63 — 

whereby for Christ's sake He counts the believer righteous." 
(Romans 3:24). (3) Regeneration. This "is the work of the 
Holy Spirit by which lie makes us new creatures in Christ 
Jesus" (Peter 1:23, Galatians 6:15). These changes effected 
in life put us in union with Jesus Christ. If sin distanced man 
from God, the Holy Spirit brought Him back by revealing the 
character and extent of that distance. If it placed him in a 
far country by making him a wanderer and stranger from 
God, he has been returned to Him, by the Divine Spirit. If 
through sin., man lost the sovereignty and dominion implied in 
the initial makeup of his being, it is through the activity of 
the Holy Spirit that he now regains them. He is truly then a 
Comforter; not in our small and material sense but in the 
larger one which anticipates man's return as a son to God as 
the Father. It is the establishment then of that filial relation- 
ship characteristic of man before his. fall in sin, and which 
was lived in perfection by Jesus Christ, that constitutes the 
supreme end of the mission of the Holy Spirit and which 
marks Him as a real comforter. 

THE RESULTS OF HIS WORK. 

The result of His work must be consistent with the plan of 
His work. It is a new creature with new motives, new loves 
and new aspirations. It is in short a new .man ; a new type of 
citizenship ; and hence a new type of society. It is a new 
community, composed of men with similar hopes, ideals and a 
similar faith. It is this new society that we call the Church, 
which is characterized by the pure preaching of the gospel and 
a correct administration of the sacraments. Its head is Jesus 
Christ and in Him it finds the realization of itself. He is the 
principle of its life and aside from Him it has absolutely no 
warrant for existence. 

The Church then as the kingdom of God represented in the 
faith of men centered in the person of the Christ, is to be 
defended and protected. To speak against it is to speak 
against Him who is its head. To live outside of the sphere of 



— 64 — 

its true influence : to refuse to share its blessings is to re- 
pudiate not only the Spirit who created it, but also to ignore 
Him who is its life and truth. It is here the He is to realize 
His mission, and its function then can be none other than the 
conversion of human souls. ' It is not a mere social organism ; 
neither is it designed to solve all the tasks that man might 
impose upon it. It is here on earth with but one message and 
that "Jesus Christ and Him crucified: The power of God unto 
salvation to every one who believes." 

This is its relation to the individual; its relation to the 
mass is only incidental and effective only when it has once 
paid its debt to the individual. Its ministry is involved in 
declaring then not a mere social or political gospel but a 
spiritual one aimed not at men but at the man. Its great 
task is to point men to the tree of life and to the "Lamb of 
God that taketh away the sin of the world." 

It is with such a Christ: it is with such a program that 
the Holy Spirit challenges the best and truest in you for 
the new life. The ideal of life is not to live at the lowest 
possible point, but at the highest. The Iloly Spirit offering 
you the riches of Christ as your Savior: the possibility for 
real peace and joy, calls you to leave the way of the past 
small and poor in the power of its ideals and fruit, and to 
walk the 'way of eternal life.' As one made in the image 
of God before whom you must appear in judgment; as a 
creature not of time but of immortality, the Spirit of God 
calls you now to own Him as the Savior ©f your life and 
exemplify before the world the qualities that mark the true 
man: that characterizes the new creature in Christ Jesus. 

CONCLUSION. 

1. That the Holy Spirit is a 'person.' 

2. That His mission is to convict, enlighten and sanctify 
sinners. 

3. That the result of His effort is the New life in Christ. 

4. That the organization of that life today is the Church. 



STUDY X. 
THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION. 

Acts 2:38 — Then Peter said unto them, "Repent and be bap- 
tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
remission of sins and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost." 

The initial state which characterizes man's reinstatement 
into the favor of God is called Salvation. It is the beginning 
of a process that is to continue on into eternity. As we have 
already noted, the steps in this process are, Conversion, Re- 
generation and Justification. Their work is not always open 
to the eye neither is it discernible by outward evidences to 
the individual: "Not by might nor by power but by My 
Spirit, saith the Lord." There is no authority to believe 
that the work of the Holy Spirit is always accompanied by 
some visible manifestations in our life. Salvation is not feel- 
ing: it is not sensation, either mental or physical simply. It 
is the peace that floods the soul, such as possesses the child 
as it reposes on its mother's bosom. Do not be looking for 
visions, etc., such as Paul had, upon the event of your con- 
version. These may come ; that is all with God. But if they 
do not come do not doubt the presence of His Spirit. 

There is a type of moral bigotry that has ruined many a 
soul. It is that which sets its religious experiences up as a 
standard or measure for all. Remember that you are a sep- 
arate individual distinct from every other man and on that 
basis God deals with you, and the experience of another is 
no warrant for the assertion that 'since you did not feel 
as I did, you are not converted.' "Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" is the simple but 
eternal formula. Let this be your guide. 

THE NATURE OF SALVATION. 

The call of the Holy Spirit is not an invitation to a new 
relationship simply — for that could be only external and mer- 

65 



-66- 

cenary — but to a new life. Salvation is not, a new bearing of 
men toward God, neither is it a new moral attitude simply; 
it is a new creature. Regeneration is not therefore reforma- 
tion. The latter is incident to the former and an effect 
rather than a cause. The mere quitting of this and that evil 
thing, is no guarantee of righteousness. 

The plea of Jesus Christ was for a new creature. His 
demand was for the re-birth of the individual. "Except a 
man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 
(John 3:3). It means that we must do more than patronize 
Jesus Christ: we must worship Him as our God and Savior. 
It is not a new attitude then, but a new condition of the 
soul. It is a life, marked by new motives of love and honor 
to God, and not to self: by new impulses — the glory of God 
and not of self. In short it assumes the attitude of Christ 
toward God because it has His mind. It is this condition 
then — the result of a personal appropriation of the merits 
of Christ's life and death, that puts man in the relationship 
of a Son. When once this condition is a fact, then the atti- 
tude of man will follow, but not before. The former is the 
creator of the latter. Salvation then is not a respectability; 
it is not simply moral culture, it is vastly more than a mere 
common decency; it is life in Jesus Christ. 

THE NECESSITY OF SALVATION. 

Man realizes two great facts: (1) That he is constituted 
essentially of great facts; and (2) that something has inter- 
vened to disturb their harmony and unity. It is not upon 
the presence of these facts but upon the method by which 
these are to be adjusted and the abnormal condition is to be 
rectified, that men differ. With the great majority of men 
it is not facts, but processes that differ them. This is due 
to the inability of many men to discover that which is es- 
sential and fundamental. 

That salvation is a necessity, is evidenced upon every page 
of the Bible. Its teaching leaves no room for doubt as to 



— 67 — 

its meaning. It not only assumes that man is a sinner, but 
its pages disclose the only remedy for his sin. If it reveals 
the disease of man, it likewise shows him the great physician. 
(John 4:14, 12:32:4-5, Acts 4:12:13:26:38:39:47, Romans 
3:21, II. Cor. 5:17, Galatians 2:16, Hebrews 5:9:7:25). 

From these statements it is evident that its plan for salva- 
tion anticipates a personal acceptance of Jesus Christ. It is 
upon Him as the mediator of divine grace, that God will 
recognize the soul; His righteousness and not that of man, is 
current with Him, and only as man appropriates it, through 
a living faith in Christ, can he hope to find favor in God's 
sight. He is the measure of the quality of your moral life. 
By itself your morality is "as filthy rags" in the sight of 
God. It will be found in the day when He visits your soul 
to be weakness instead of strength. 

Outlined on every page of the sacred book : implied in the 
very nature of man is the thought of his salvation on other 
grounds than those which he can afford. Thus it is that 
before the name of Christ, "every knee shall bow and every 
tongue confess." 

THE CONDITION OF SALVATION. 

Salvation is not simply a mere display of goodness. Peace 
with our fellowmen does not necessarily signify peace with 
our God. It is not simply doing, but pre-eminently being 
good. It is goodness from a pure and new center. It is 
goodness in behalf of a new object. It is goodness coming 
from a heart, made pure by the regenerating power of Jesus 
Christ. It is therefore not a mere negative quality — the mere 
abstinence from wrong doing — but positively, the assertion 
of a new power in life. It is goodness with a new and true 
moral quality because produced at a new center, which is 
Christ. 

This implies two requisites: (1) Repentance. (Matthew 
3:2, Luke 3:8, Acts 3:19). This does not imply the forget- 
ting, or even the forsaking of the past. It is contrition. It 



— 68 — 

is 'heart-sorrow for sin.' Neither is repentance and remorse 
identical. The latter is sorrow caused by the discovery of 
our acts of sin by our fellowmen; the former is sorrow that 
comes because we recognize them to be contrary to the will 
of a loving God. The latter is concerned with the reputation , 
the former with the character. Remorse comes to the thief 
when he is discovered and apprehended by the law; repent- 
ance only when he feels himself guilty before a just God. 
It therefore implies the utter forsaking of our sin (Romans 
12:2). 

(2) Faith. (John 6:29:47:11:25, Romans 3:28). This is 
not a mere belief in the historical facts of the Bible. You 
can believe these and still be lost. This type of faith is the 
possession of every formalist. It is not the mere acceptance 
of a biblical statement or proposition that constitutes faith. 
The mere knowledge of a few moral facts does not count for 
faith. Faith, is moral surrender of the soul, resulting from 
an interpretation of these facts by the Holy Spirit. It is. 
the realization of the benefits of these facts by trust in Jesus 
Christ. Faith is surrender upon the basis of a knowledge of 
Christ, produced by the Holy Spirit through the word and 
sacraments; this constitutes the heart of faith. Faith then is 
not an act of the mind simply, but the resignation of the 
heart, upon the enlightenment of the moral value of the facts 
of the Bible, as interpreted by the Divine Spirit. 

It is first knowing Christ through the Spirit's activity 
and a consequent surrender to Him, that illustrates the ideal 
faith. As such therefore it is not the creation of man. Man 
in sin, unlike and ignorant of God, cannot take the initiative 
in making this surrender. It is not the work of human hands 
but of divine ones. Now the most rational thing to suppose 
— aside from the statement of Scripture — is that God is the 
author of this state of the soul. For if man is unable to 
create the condition primarily for his return to God, he would 
be equally unable to afford the proper means by which that 
condition could be appropriated. To the truth of this the 



— 69 — 

Scripture bears ample testimony. "For by grace are ye 
saved through faith : and that not of yourselves : it is the gift 
of God" (Ephesians 2:8). 

But a question arises at this point : Why specify faith as 
the only means? Is it because it is demanded simply on the 
pages of the Bible? Or putting it another way, Why does 
God require faith at all? Faith represents the normal and 
ideal attitude of man to God. There is no less of faith before 
the Fall nor was there any more of faith after it. Faith 
therefore was normal and natural with mau. It was sin that 
destroyed this ideal relationship and made it necessary for 
God to intervene not only in behalf of the making of a plan 
for man's return to Him, but also in giving him the means 
by which this plan could become a part of his experience. 

It was faith in the "Devil and distrust of God, that led the 
first man astray ; it was the ideal faith and consequent obedi- 
ence that enabled the last and ideal man to remain within the 
circle of perfect communion. Consequently it is faith in God 
on the merits of His plan realized in the God-Man, that can 
bring man back to his place in the divine economy. Faith 
therefore is the only means by which you can be saved, be- 
cause it is the necessary and rational condition, consistent 
with the nature of both God and man. (Romans 3:22:19:4:9, 
Galatians 2:16, Philippians 3:9). 

But faith does not come to man by chance. (Ephesians 
2:8). It comes to us from God through appointed means. 
These means are the Word of God and the Sacraments : Bap- 
tism and the Lord's Supper. 

It is these that not only afford the medium for faith, but 
do so by crystalizing the presentation of Christ, into faith. 
By these means we not only acquire the faith which brings 
us into the kingdom of God, but also that which enables us 
to stay there. No man has ever been converted, except through 
the Word of God; and no man has ever remained converted 
who has neglected or repudiated baptism and the Lord's 
Supper. The first sign of moral degeneration and spiritual 



— 70 — 

falling away from God is the slight use made of these means 
of grace. 

This is in light of the method employed by which faith is 
started and maintained in the life. This is in view of the 
value of faith to God and its necessity on the part of man to 
share the divine favor. It carries out our contention of the 
vital relationship between faith and the means 'of grace. It 
evidences its fundamental character in the Christian life; it 
is the prerequisite to full heritage in the future of the Son 
of God. These N are facts, not of human reason, but of divine 
revelation. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

1. That salvation is a new life and not a mere reformation 
of life. 

2. That it is absolutely necessary to eternal peace. 

3. That it comes only through a personal surrender to 
Jesus Christ. 

4. That the means of its appropriation is the Holy Spirit 
operating through the Word and Sacrament. 



STUDY XI. 
THE DOCTRINE OF SIN. 

I. John 3:4 — "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also 
the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." 

In the studies that have preceded we have in a brief man- 
ner touched upon this one. It is hardly possible to consider 
the history of man and that of God as He is related to him, 
without taking this fact into consideration. It is because of 
the large place this fact holds in the life of man, that we 
undertake a larger study of the same. In fact a reality that 
is so prevalent and persistent and one that enters so widely 
into every phase of human activity, and especially the moral 
one, should have a prominent place in our thinking. 

We have spoken of the existence of Sin as a fact. This is 
evident both in the persistent and yet unsuccessful attempts 
on the part of man to account for it, on purely natural grounds, 
and the insistent manner with which it injects its life into 
that of man. From the days of Adam till now its presence is 
witnessed by a moral fruitage that has baffled every effort 
of man to correct it, and was responsible for the greatest 
disclosure of God, recorded in all history. (John 15:20:22). 
To change its name is not to change its character; for its 
relation to man is not one affecting the body but the soul : 
the former is the result of the latter. It is not merely an 
external burden but more especially an internal condition 
that affects man at the seat of his moral life. 

WHAT IT IS. 

Sin implies a relationship : and that on a standard fixed 
and settled. The nature of sin being moral — as we have 
indicated — it is reasonable to conclude that the standard 
must likewise be moral. The relationship then is not physical 
but spiritual, with which sin has to do. But sin also implies 



— 72 — 

the existence and exercise of the highest point in the being 
of man, and the standard by which it is judged, must then 
be of the highest moral order which can be none other than 
God Himself. It implies the exercise of free will. It then 
has to do not only with the acts of man, but more particularly 
with his nature. 

Here is the popular error. Sin is not an act, neither is it 
a series of acts : it is a disposition, a character, and a nature. 
It is not something superficial in man ; it is a part of his 
very existence. It is responsible for his acts, and lies at the 
bottom of every move away from God. 

It is very true that the Bible speaks of it. as the trans- 
gression of the law (I. John- 3:6), but we inquire what is 
law? What is it in government and society? Is it not the 
'will/ of those composing it? If otherwise, why is it that 
any disobedience or defiance of that law, (or will), is in- 
terpreted as a blow at government or society? If govern- 
ment is not the 'will' of the persons governed, then anything 
like punishment would be impossible. Guilt is based upon 
an act 'of disobedience directed against personal will. We 
saw that as God is personal, sin thus must be a blow at 
the moral government of God, as disobedience here is a blow 
not simply against one law, but against the whole structure 
of society. This is the spirit of responsibility and of sin. 
Conceived then as 'will' we can see that sin is not an act 
against a mere arbitrary decree of man, but it is a rebellion 
against the will of God, which represents the exercise of the 
very nature of God. Sin then is a blow at the plan and in 
the face of the divine creator. To refuse loyalty and obedi- 
ence to that will is considered as open defiance to God Him- 
self. In fact this is the very end and intention of sin. 

Sin is not something that man has taken on in the late 
years of his history, then. It is not confined to the years 
of adulthood. It lies at the very bottom of the history of 
man and fundamentally of his being. Thus we speak of 
original sin, which is defined as "the thorough corruption of 



— 73 — 

human nature, which by the Fall of our first parents, is de- 
prived of original righteousness and is prone to every evil." 
It is then to be found not only in the adult but in the child 
and infant as well. It is the spring from which flows all the 
bitter and polluting waters that come in after-life. Instead 
of original holiness and purity there have come their direct 
opposite, the state of depravity and sin. It is this state of 
unlikeness to God, that not only affords the source of actual 
transgression, but which merits His great displeasure and 
wrath. (Genesis 5:3, Job 15:14;25:4, Psalms 51:5, Galatians 
3:22, Romans 5:12;3:19). 

The most popular and evident form of sin is selfishness. 
In fact it is of the very essence of sin itself. It is essentially 
the deification of self, which was the end held out to the first 
Adam, and which proved his undoing. It is the setting up of 
another to be God, which is the very root-philosophy of all 
present day heathenism. In fact it represents the end for 
which sin is striving: the ultimate overthrow of God. It is 
an easier task to conquer man in his attempt to be God, than 
God Himself: This was the evident plan of the devil. 

WHY IS SIN? 

Man is a free creature because he was made in the image 
of God who represents this quality in perfection, and su- 
premacy. Sin is simply this freedom misdirected; it is free 
will abused and captivated by the enemy. Man's nature was 
constituted to bring honor to his creator : sin is man missing 
the mark,, for which he was created. The law of freedom 
was in the life of man, before his fall, and is therefore a part 
of his very nature. If man was to remain man. it was im- 
possible for even God to have intervened and prevented the 
first sin. 

For man is essentially a part of God, and to have denied 
man here, would mean that He would deny Himself and this 
He cannot do. The same holds true today. Should He step 
into the arena of man's life and annihilate sin, man would be 



— 74 — 

dethroned and unmade. He would cease to be man, and be- 
come but a mere machine. If he is to remain a free creature 
— and consequently man — he must be allowed the free exer- 
cise of this capacity, i. e. the power of free choice. 

It is likewise true should God intervene to the complete 
destruction of sin, it would mean His overthrow also, since 
He would be destroying in man, which is also .supreme in His 
own nature. In His outlook then upon sin, He must not only 
consider the immediate state of man, but his future one as 
well. It would be different if we could imagine sin existent 
without man. Man is the center of God's concern, which is 
evident from the character of the remedy for sin provided in 
Jesus Christ. 

Man's attitude then toward truth determines his future 
state. Hence the gospel is either "a savour of life unto life: 
or of death unto death." (II. Cor. 2:16). It is the power of 
God unto salvation upon the condition of faith (Romans 1:16) 
and not upon any work or effort we may put forth; it is the 
power unto death, when we spurn its call to life and turn 
our hearts against its offers and claims. 

THE ATTITUDE OP GOD TOWARD SIN. 

That it is one of hatred is plain throughout the Bible. 
(Deuteronomy 25:16, Psalms 5:4). That He has no pleasure 
in sin, is most consistent with what we know Him to be. But 
while He hates sin with an eternal hatred, He yet loves the 
sinner as intensely. (John 3:16). The secret of the oriental con- 
ception of God in the light of eternal anger and displeasure, 
is the result (1st) of ignorance of what He is and (2nd) of 
the relation of man to Him. Man and sin are not identical in 
their destiny only in so far as man chooses it to be so. While 
God has willed the overthrow of sin, He has willed the en- 
thronement of man to his rightful place in His favor. 

It took the death of His Son, to correct the human error 
at this point, and to provide for man's restoration to that 
place where he realizes the real ends of his* creation. 



— 75 — 

The act by which God restores man, is born in a new atti- 
tude toward him. We call it forgiveness. This is an act 
which can be done by God alone. There is absolutely no 
warrant in the Bible, for the practice whereby certain men 
have tried to forgive sins. Man can 'declare' the forgiveness 
of sins in view of the fulfillment of certain conditions on the 
part of man, but never absolutely pardon them. This is 
reserved to God alone. Man can declare the conditions but 
not the act of forgiveness. Forgiveness is universal upon 
the universal application of the merits of Christ's death and 
resurrection. This is in view of the universality of sin. For 
no man is without sin. (I. John 1:8-10). The history of the 
Apostle Paul as outlined in Romans the seventh chapter, is 
the experience of man universal. Peace comes only, when 
through pardon, man is reinstated in the divine favor. 

There is a state of sin, possible however which is beyond 
the pale of forgiveness: this is called the 'unpardonable' 
sin. (Matthew 12:31). This sin consists in blasphemy against 
the Holy Ghost. Two points must be noted in its study; 
(1st) the significance of the word 'to blaspheme;' and (2nd) 
this in view of the mission of the Holy Spirit. The word 
'blaspheme' signifies in its root meaning "to bring to naught." 
We conceived the work of the Holy Spirit to be the presenta- 
tion and interpretation of Jesus Christ to the individual so 
as to work salvation in his life. The unpardonable sin then 
•must be that attitude of the individual toward the work of 
the Holy Spirit, which includes the whole range of holy and 
sacred operations of God, which results in the frustration of 
His work. But to be able to do this presupposes a former 
acquaintance and intimacy with the Holy Spirit ; it argues a 
former knowledge of the light and truth. It refers then to a 
possible state in the man who has once tasted of the gift of 
God but who has fallen from His favor. The man who was 
once a Christian, but who now by his life and talk ridicules 
the things that are holy and sacred is a fit subject for the 
unpardonable sin. 



— 76 — 

It is true that it is possible for the unregenerate man to 
sin away his day of grace, when the Spirit of God will no 
longer strive with him; but we do not conceive this to be 
specifically the unpardonable sin. The one is such a falling 
away from that which he once loved and worshiped, till now 
he hates and opposes with the same ardor with which he first 
loved; the other is that state in a sinner's life where he no 
longer has the capacity to perceive the Spirit's call to sal- 
vation. Both are an example of self, attempting to realize 
its highest self in spite of the divine will of God. 

The glory of both is short lived and soon they will find 
themselves face to face with the reality of their awful doom. 
It is not only rational but necessary for you to forsake it for 
it is consigned by a just God to an awful future in which you 
will share, if you choose to follow it. To love sin is not only 
to enjoy its apparent and transcient pleasures, but to share 
in the awful tragedy of its end. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

1. That sin is disobedience to the will of God. 

2. That it is a part of the nature of man. 

3. That it is possible only because of the free will of man. 

4. That God hates sin and will forever punish it. 



STUDY XII. 
THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER. 

Luke 11:1 — "And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in 
a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said 

unto him, Lord teach us to pray, as John also taught his 
disciples." 

Prayer is not the creation of any one religion; it belongs 
to no one age. It is to be found in the history of every race 
and tribe ; it is as old as man himself. It is not simply con- 
fined to man in his fallen state ; it is true also of man unfallen. 
It is true that Ave have no instance of prayer before the Fall, 
but from what we know of man and his relation to the world 
it is reasonable to suppose that he held communion with his 
creator before his awful apostacy. The Fall while necessi- 
tating a type of prayer that perhaps did not prevail before it, 
emphasized it in a manner and gave to it a touch that would 
be impossible before the Fall. It is true that innocence has 
equal need of prayer with imperfection. 

The great masters at prayer have been few in the world's 
history. In fact the world has seen only one truly great man, 
whose excellency was manifest at this point. It Avas the ideal 
man: Christ Jesus. It Avas at His feet that the Avorld has 
learned the simplicity, nature and poAver of prayer. In fact 
it is His name that gives it the qualities that mark it as 
such. It is here that Ave must feel the throb of its revelation 
and the calm of its peace. 

We have from His lips A\ T hat is knoAA^n around the world 
as the 'Lord's Prayer.' It came in response to the request 
of His apostles "Lord teach us to pray." It is the most concise 
and yet the most comprehensive prayer knoAvn. It has been 
the pattern for all prayer since that time. In the introduc- 
tion, "Our Father Avho art in Heaven," Ave realize that God 
is a father and possessed of the qualities that must constitute 

77 



— 78 — 

a father. In the first petition, "Hallowed be Thy Name," we 
are taught to recognize His name as holy at all times. In the 
second petition, "Thy Kingdom Come," we ask that the rule 
of God may be realized in perfection here. In the third pe- 
tition, "Thy Will be Done on Earth as it is in Heaven," we 
ask God that He will give us grace to help realize the will of 
God — be that for pain or pleasure — on earth as it is realized 
in Heaven. The fourth petition, "Give us This Day Our' 
Daily Bread," aims to bring us with a thankful heart before 
Him for all His benefits; it implies not only earthly but 
heavenly blessings as well. In the fifth petition, "Forgive us 
Our Trespasses as We Forgive Those Who Trespass Against 
Us," we pray that God might \give us a penitent heart and 
remember no longer our sins against us. In the sixth pe- 
tition, "And Lead us Not Into Temptation," we pray for the 
guardianship of God against the wiles of the devil, and His 
protection against every temptation to do evil. In the seventh 
petition, "But Deliver us From Evil," we ask that we be 
delivered not only from the results of sin, but from sin it- 
self. The conclusion, "For Thine is the Kingdom, and the 
Power, and the Glory Forever and Ever, Amen," sums up 
the whole prayer, and reveals both the end of prayer and also 
the assurance of an answer to our petitions. It is the master 
prayer and every man should know it. It should be early on 
the lips of every child. It reveals (1st) what constitutes real 
prayer, and (2nd) it shows its necessity. 

WHAT PRAYER IS. 

It is not simply the utterance of a few words and sen- 
tences. It is not the recitation of a few finely joined phrases. 
It is by far not a speech to our maker. It is not a talking into 
the air. It is an address of the soul to God. We do not then 
say our prayers: we pray them. Let us guard against 'say- 
ing' the Lord's Prayer: we 'pray' it. Many a prayer because 
of this error, is no more than a mere presumptous display of 
human knowledge. It is lacking the spiritual element and 



— 79 — 

hence is irreverant, because of its human familarity. No 
man who recognizes that 'God is great: yea very great,' will 
ever come in a light and flippant attitude before Him. God 
cannot honor that prayer that is only a mere exhibition of 
grammar or words. He cannot answer the prayer that comes 
only from the lips. 

Many have been tempted into a wrong spirit in prayer be- 
cause of their desire to pray in public. In fact we know men 
who think it an indictment of a man's religion if he is unable 
to pray in public. This is far from the truth of the matter. 
It has been our observation that some men's prayers reveal an 
awful deficiency in their religious experience and it had been 
better with them had they never attempted to pray in public. 
We have heard some prayers on the house top that should have 
been made in the closet ; it would have been more edifying to 
all, we are sure. If you wish to utter your petition in public, 
better by far read a prayer than run the risk of coming to God 
in a manner that does not befit a worshiper. 

Prayer ought to have preparation, as well as any other re- 
ligious expression of life. No man has a right to think he 
must have training and preparation to present himself before 
an assembly of men to make known his wants, and none what- 
ever when he presents himself before his God. It is a pre- 
sumption that has no warrant, either in the Bible or in good 
judgment. If you cannot pray so as to bring honor to the 
name of your God, learn the 'Lord's Prayer' or one of the 
beautiful prayers from our Church hymnal in which we are 
sure you will be able to worship Him just as acceptably. 

Prayer as 'the sincere desire of the heart,' ought to lift us 
very close to our Christ. It should have in it, adoration, con- 
fession and thanksgiving. These elements should characterize 
every prayer. It should comprehend and include all these. 
Real prayer is the soul asking of God, and the character of 
the same will be commensurate with our conception of our 
needs. 



— 80 — 

Not only do our own necessities urge us to prayer, but the 
Bible as well (Matthew 7:7), "Ask and it shall be given you." 
(Luke 18:21) "men ought always to pray and not faint." 
But our prayers should not only be at stated times; we are 
told; "pray without ceasing" (I. Thes. 5:17) that is we are 
admonished to be always in a frame of mind for prayer. Here 
is the great element of strength for the Christian. This is his 
secret power, on the street as well as in the home: in the 
Counting House as well as in the Sanctuary. 

Prayer puts us in contact with divine strength and enables 
the soul to be clothed with divine power. It is not a means of 
grace for in it the individual goes to God, and yet as a result 
of its place in life, we are brought into touch with God's favor. 
Linked with faith we are told to ask anything and expect it. It 
enables man to appropriate those factors which give him vic- 
tory over care, trouble, want, temptation and the power of the 
evil one. It is then a necessity. No life can be without it and 
maintain its identity long as a Christian life. "When man stops 
praying he cuts himself off from the fountain head, and his 
stream of living water will soon dry up. 

TO WHOM SHOULD WE PRAY? 

We have in some manner anticipated our answer, in our 
study of what prayer is. The introduction of the model prayer 
"Our Father" gives likewise the answer. It is to none other 
than God. For this we have the authority of Jesus Himself. 
We do not need the council of men. (Matthew 4:10, Philipians 
4:6). There is neither scripture nor reason that justifies any 
man in praying to a saint. It is a type of idolotry and ought 
to be discountenanced at all times. It is the echo of an age 
long since passed. It smacks of the heathen and has absolutely 
no place in Christian worship. It brings no small reflection 
upon both the Word and Work of Christ. 

Why should any man pray to a saint, to pray to Jesus, to 
pray to God, when we are told to come boldly before a throne 
of grace? Why belittle both the Word of God here and also 



— 81 — 

the ability of Christ? As believers in the ' universal priesthood 
of all believers' we cannot give our sanction to such legalism. 
It is not only foreign to the real end and spirit of prayer, but 
also contrary to the command of Christ Himself. The prayer 
that is directed to the Virgin Mary Ave consider as sacrilege and 
a dishonor to Christ and to God. It belittles the divine by the 
introduction of the human element into the plan by which man 
comes before his God. It is based on ignorance and fosters the 
spirit of decay and stagnation in religion rather than that of 
progress. 

This type of teaching which emphasizes human agencies in 
man's approach to God, is a reflection upon the sufficiency of 
the divine one and discredits the power of Christ as our one 
great Advocate with the Father. ("If any man sin, we have 
an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." 
(I. John 2 :1). It is then not only contrary to the real spirit and 
intent of prayer, but an awful shock to the moral culture and 
sensibility of the soul. It is evidence of the presence 
of the crude and gross : it is an emphasis on the 
natural, to the neglect of the spiritual qualities of man. It 
represents a crude materialism in religion. This type of prayer 
is a mere mumble of words and devoid of all real spiritual 
significance. Compared with the 'Lord's Prayer' it is mere 
mockery. 

FOR WHAT SHOULD WE PRAY? 

First for things that are consistent and in perfect harmony 
with the moral height of our nature. It should anticipate both 
the uplift of human life and the honor of God. It should aim 
not only to bring the soul into closer touch with its God, but it 
should magnify His name among men as well. Our prayer then 
should be directed toward moral objects and should anticipate 
moral ends. Our asking in prayer should then not be hap- 
hazard. It ought not confine itself to the material needs alone. 
It should have primarily in view the spiritual needs of 
the soul : others should be secondary. Prayer then is 



— 82 — 

a serious business. It is to realize the greatest ends. If we 
can once recognize the true majesty of God, the real value and 
meaning of prayer will be evident. 

But all prayer to be of value must be given in the name of 
Jesus Christ. "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will 
I do." (John 14:13). "Where two or three are gathered to- 
gether in My Name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 
18 :20). It is not words then that give prayer the basis of its 
surety ; it is the name of Christ. With His name omitted prayer 
is not prayer at all and finds no acceptance with God. In the 
New Testament sense, and this must be our guide in the very 
nature of the case, such prayer dishonors God. 

But there is another element in prayer — to which we alluded 
on another page — which completes its value for us: that is 
Faith. We are admonished to ask in "faith," believing, for it 
is impossible to please God without faith. To pray without 
faith is to dishonor God and to disappoint the soul. Better 
not pray at all than to pray with this element left out. The 
promise that God will hear and man receive, is based on our 
asking in faith. Our expectations should measure up with 
our faith : and our faith should measure up to our needs. 

CONCLUSION. 

1. Prayer is the sincere request of the heart, either in secret 
or public. 

2. It must be to God. 

3. It must be in the name of Christ. 

4. It must be accompanied by Faith. 



STUDY XIII. 

THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM: ITS NATURE 
AND NECESSITY. 

John 3:5 — '* Jesus answered, Verily, Verily, 1 say unto thee 
except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of God." 

It was noted in a former study that the ordinary approach 
of the Holy Spirit to the soul was through divinely appointed 
means. It was likewise noted that one of these means was 
'Baptism.' The sacrament of Baptism- is most important (1) 
because of its prominent place in the teaching of Christ and 
the apostles; and (2) because of the import which it carries 
for man. 

For Christ it was one of the_ central thoughts. It is to be 
found among the last words to the leadership of the early 
Church. "Go and Baptize." Its place in the great plan of 
salvation was not only authorized but necessitated by Christ, 
and hence it always had a large place in his thoughts. So 
much so that it is impossible to conceive of a soul coming into 
a new relationship with its God without placing the act of 
baptism at the beginning of that life. We have come to 
believe from its representation on the pages of the Bible, that 
it is the normal manner of entry into the kingdom of God, and 
that any other way must be attended by hazard. The emphasis 
given to this doctrine in the Bible apparently warrants us in 
making it the absolute way of entry into the kingdom: wp 
shall discover however, that this claim is not made for it. 

THE NATURE OF BAPTISM. 

No one can examine the scripture on this subject without 
discovering that baptism is neither a mere incidental matter in 
the divine plan of salvation, nor it is an optional matter with 

83 



— 84 — 

man. Its place in the teachings of Christ argue for it great 
significance. 

This is due to the divine principle implied in baptism. It is 
a divinely appointed means whereby the Holy Spirit comes 
into the life of man, to call him to salvation and to identify 
him with the life of Christ. It is then not a mere seal or sign 
of salvation. It is here that we have worked great havoc with 
both the sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, in rob- 
bing them of their real import by eliminating from them just 
as much of their moral value as possible without destroying 
them. It is a mark of real spiritual insight to be able to see 
not only the symbol but also that which is symbolized. 

While it is true that baptism is the means by which the indi- 
vidual is inducted into a new life in Christ, this is only absolute 
with the child, since he is unable to grasp the written Word; 
with the adult however the Word has precedence because it is 
here that the Holy Spirit first arouses him to a sense of his sin 
and need of salvation. 

It stands then at the very portal of divine grace, and to 
under-estimate it not only belittles the sacrament itself, but 
brings reproach upon the Divine Spirit who gives it its peculiar 
value. It is then not a mere act of man. Its essential 
nature comprehends more than a mere performance although 
it be done under a moral guise. Baptism "is not mere water, 
but such as is comprehended and included in the Word and 
command of God, and sanctified by them, so that it is nothing 
else than a water of God or a divine water." This does not 
mean that it of itself is of more value than other water but that 
God's Word and command are added to it, which give to it its 
peculiar place in the Christian economy of salvation. 

Its substance and value then is not in the character of the 
administrator but in the act and words : ' I baptize thee in the 
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.' 
Baptism even by a heretic would be valid. Hence the Lutheran 
Church states that in cases of emergency any Christian man or 



— 85 — 

woman can administer the rite of baptism however being care- 
ful to state the same for record in the Church. 

Baptism has both an earthly and a heavenly side to it : the 
water — its earthly side — together with its connection with the 
activity of the Holy Spirit, its heavenly side. Since water was 
used both in the Old Testament, and the New Testament to 
signify cleansing and purification it is necessary to use only 
water then in the administration of this sacrament. To use 
another element is to destroy its place as a sacrament, 

With baptism then as an avenue for the Holy Spirit's 
activity with the soul, it is a matter of interest to know what 
benefits come as a result of this contact, Are they of primary 
importance or are they of only secondary value? Our answer 
to this question will reflect not only our conception of baptism 
but likewise our conception of the benefits of Christ's death 
and resurrection. For it is these facts that qualify this sacra- 
ment as such and give it a place in God's will for the highest 
interests of the soul. 

The primary design of baptism is the offering, applying, con- 
firming, and sealing of redeeming grace. Through baptism 
man enters into the fullness of divine grace and begins the life 
which is to end only in the realization of the full stature of the 
Christ. Through baptism man stands before God as a sin- 
pardoned and redeemed son. It brings him forgiveness of sins, 
(John 3:5, Acts 2:28) salvation and the full inheritance of the 
wealth of Jesus Christ, (Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27) and con- 
sequently newness of life (Colossians 2:11). 

Upon the extent however of this cleansing and the scope of 
its work there is no consensus of opinion. That is, there is no 
common agreement as to the depth of its benefits in the nature 
of man. 

Does it include sin as such or simp]}' its fruits? The Roman 
Catholic Church teaches thai in baptism sin is destroyed. Hi is 
is meant to include its entire destruction. The Lutheran 
Church does not accept this as do none of the evangelical 



— 86 — 

Churches of Protestantism. It does however, teach 'that the 
guilt and dominion of sin are taken away by baptism, but not 
the root or incentive to sin. ' Baptism removes the guilt of sin 
but not the inclination to sin. Man is by nature, we learned, 
depraved and this, as the father of all outward sin, is not taken 
away in baptism. Hence Paul cried out "who shall deliver me 
from the body of this death ? ' ' This is not the cry of one man 
but of many; it is not only the constant experience of Paul; 
it is that of the race as well. In spite of all that has been done 
for man to effect his return to . God, the heart of humanity 
realizes the awful presence of that which makes the heart 
"deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." This 
baptism cannot fully eradicate from the heart. 

ITS NECESSITY. 

Baptism from its relation to the teaching of Christ and its 
consequent place in the plan for man's redemption, then is 
more than a mere ceremony; it is even more than a mere rite. 
It holds everything that is implied in the name 'sacrament.' 
If the latter be conceived as a divine means by which God 
comes to man in terms of salvation, it is very evident that bap- 
tism is that very means by which the soul is initiated into the 
new life. Hence its place is at the very beginning of man's 
conversion. With such an import attached to baptism, we feel 
that its place in the thinking and life of the individual must be 
great. It was placed as one of the first steps by Jesus in the 
salvation of man. "Except a man — Greek: 'any one' — be born 
of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God." This is a comprehensive statement and one that rings 
with the note of finality. That these words are those of Jesus 
Himself also adds weight to its place and consideration. No 
amount of juglery can make 'water and spirit' identical. There 
is no other place in the Bible where this is shown, and cannot 
here mean anything else than that baptism is the ordinary and 
normal manner of entry into the kingdom. 

It is not a mere expedient; but the ideal way provided by 



— 87 — 

God by which man is brought into the kingdom. Expedients 
are never resorted to in the physical world except in cases of 
emergency ; the same procedure holds true likewise in the 
moral world. Jesus was attempting to bring Nicodemus within 
the light of the new life and birth. Is it to be supposed that 
He would speak in figures of "speech at so critical a time? No; 
He must have had in mind a divine act which was to simplify 
somewhat the mystery of the new birth. 

But there is another saying of Jesus bearing on this point, 
which we must consider with the foregoing one: "Go ye into 
all the world — he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: 
but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Matthew 
16:15-16). A study of these two statements of Jesus — one 
made at the very beginning and the other at the close of His 
ministery — will reveal, (1st) that baptism is the way pre- 
scribed for entrance into the possession of His gift; and (2nd) 
that faith on the part of man is the element that gives it value 
for him. Its necessity then is not absolute but ordinary. But 
this gives us no liberty to indifference as to this sacrament. 
We have no right to impose our case on the long-suffering favor 
of God. We are within the truth when we state as our belief 
that baptism is always necessary and God's will in this matter 
is never changed except in necessary cases. These however are at 
his discretion and not at that of man. We have no moral right 
whatever to interfere in the divine plans for the soul, and will 
not do so except we are opposing Him. It is not the absence 
of baptism but our opposition to it that condemns: "He that 
believeth not shall be damned," carries out this interpretation. 
Unbelief, even with the sacrament of baptism would not bring 
salvation ; it would on the other hand bring condemnation. 

Man then can be saved in extreme cases by faith, without 
this saving ordinance; but never with the saving ordinance, 
with faith left out. And then it is a most unreasonable thing 
to suppose that any man who would oppose this sacrament, 
would or could have faith with such a state of heart. Love, to 



— 88 — 

Christ implies a love and friendliness to all which He instituted 
and sanctioned; the reverse is likewise true. Baptism is then 
a channel of divine grace, whose benefits are assured to you 
through your faith, wrought by the Holy "Spirit, through the 
Word. Its value to you depends not upon mere water but upon 
your faith, in Jesus Christ. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

1. That baptism is the appointed means of grace. 

2. That it is necessary in the ordinary sense. 

3. That it is opposition to the sacrament and not its absence, 
that condemns. 

4. That faith must accompany baptism. 



STUDY XIV. 
THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM: THE MODE. 

Mark 16:16 — "He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." 

In the previous study we stated that 'Baptism' is water com- 
prehended and included in the Word and command of God. 
This statement is not however universally accepted. There are 
approximately 447,000,000 Christians in the world and of this 
number about 10,000,000 insist upon quite another definition of 
this ordinance. We are told that "baptism is mode and noth- 
ing else;" that it refers not to the sacrament as such, but 
rather to the mode of its administration. This has tended to 
widen the breach between the Christian forces and its result in 
part is a divided and bigoted Christendom. It is no common 
occurrence to hear some of the more insistent 'modistes' state 
that all are lost who are not 'Immersed.' That the 'mode' of 
baptism, and the elements that qualify it as such are not 
identical, we believe, will be evident from two considerations. 

I.— FROM REASON. 

If it be accepted that in baptism God confers divine grace, 
it is evident that we cannot confine Him to any one mode in 
accomplishing this end. We saw that baptism, while a means 
of grace, does not confine God to its use absolutely; then why 
should we confine Him to any one mode, when He does use it? 
To state that He is confined to any one mode in the bestowal 
of His favor upon man, is not only inconsistent with what we 
have conceived Him to be, but also contrary with His opera- 
tions in the» realm of nature, etc. It is not within the province 
of man to limit God in His work, either in nature or in grace. 
If there is to be any limitation it shall be assumed by Him, of 
His own free will. This was true in the form which the incar- 
nation took; it must likewise be true by analogy in the bestowal 
of the effects of that incarnation. 

89 



Christ implies a love and friendliness to all which He instituted 
and sanctioned; the reverse is likewise true. Baptism is then 
a channel of divine grace, whose benefits are assured to you 
through your faith, wrought by the Holy 'Spirit, through the 
Word. Its value to you depends not upon mere water but upon 
your faith, in Jesus Christ. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

1. That baptism is the appointed means of grace. 

2. That it is necessary in the ordinary sense. 

3. That it is opposition to the sacrament and not its absence, 
that condemns. 

4. That faith must accompany baptism. 



STUDY XIV. 
THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM: THE MODE. 

Mark 16:16 — "He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." 

In the previous study we stated that 'Baptism' is water com- 
prehended and included in the Word and command of God. 
This statement is not however universally accepted. There are 
approximately 447,000,000 Christians in the world and of this 
number about 10,000,000 insist upon quite another definition of 
this ordinance. We are told that "baptism is mode and noth- 
ing else;" that it refers not to the saceament as such, but 
rather to the mode of its administration. This has tended to 
widen the breach between the Christian forces and its result in 
part is a divided and bigoted Christendom. It is no common 
occurrence to hear some of the more insistent 'modistes' state 
that all are lost who are not 'Immersed.' That the 'mode' of 
baptism, and the elements that qualify it as such are not 
identical, we believe, will be evident from two considerations. 

I.— FROM REASON. 

If it be accepted that in baptism God confers divine grace, 
it is evident that we cannot confine Him to any one mode in 
accomplishing this end. We saw that baptism, while a means 
of grace, does not confine God to its use absolutely; then why 
should we confine Him to any one mode, when He does use it? 
To state that He is confined to any one mode in the bestowal 
of His favor upon man, is not only inconsistent with what we 
have conceived Him to be, but also contrary with His opera- 
tions in the- realm of nature, etc. It is not within the province 
of man to limit God in His work, either in nature or in grace. 
If there is to be any limitation it shall be assumed by Him. of 
His own free will. This was true in the form which the incar- 
nation took; it must likewise be true by analogy in the bestowal 
of the effects of that incarnation. 



— 90 — 

Then again the efficacy of divine grace is not confined to 
nor is it dependent upon, modes of bestowal. This is true in 
every sphere of life. Potatoes possess no greater food 
value whether eaten with a fork of gold, or with the fingers. 
Soup is no better if eaten with a silver spoon, than if eaten 
with a pewter one. It might be better form and etiquette to 
choose the former, but so far as the value of the food for the 
body is concerned no change takes place here. The value de- 
pends upon the ability of the physical organism to appropriate 
and assimilate the food, and this is just what we say about 
baptism. It is the individual ability through faith to accept 
the benefits of baptism, and not its mode, that constitutes its 
value. 

It is hardly possible that after all these years of research and 
study upon this subject that one man can indict 45 men and 
prove his case. It does not seem within reason that ten million 
people can charge 437 million with being without the New 
Testament meaning of baptism and see their charge triumph. 
One man can hang a jury but he cannot by such action vindi- 
cate the prisoner. 

II.— FROM REVELATION. 

Our conclusion — that the mode of baptism is not synonymous 
with the Ordinance itself and that it does not effect its moral 
value — is further borne out by an induction into the subject 
as stated on the pages of the Bible itself. (1) It does not 
specify any one particular mode of baptism. It no where 
indicates any prescribed or stated mode for this act. Neither 
does the name for this sacrament indicate any such mode. 
The Greek word used in the New Testament to signify bap- 
tism is 'baptizo.' It has — and always has had — two meanings: 
(1st) The one used by the Greek-or-un-Christian- writers to 
denote the sinking of a ship, the sinking of a horse in the mud 
up to its neck, etc., and as such meant 'to dip,' 'to sink' 
or 'to immerse;' the (2nd) that one used in the Bible for 
purification and cleansing. Mark 7:4 says, "and many other 



— 91 — 

things there be, which they have received to hold, as the ' wash- 
ing' of cups etc." In Hebrews 9:10 Ave read, "which stood in 
meats and drinks of divers 'washings'" Luke 11 :38 says "and 
when the Pharisee saw it he marveled that he had not first 
'washed' before dinner." The words, "washing," "washed" 
and "washings," employed here, all come from the word 
'baptize' The reference in Luke is noteworthy in view of 
the oriental custom of pouring water on the hands, which 
would indicate that when the Jew 'baptized' his hands for 
dinner it was by pouring. 

It is certainly not the form or mode assumed by baptism then 
that the New Testament writers are noting, but rather its 
benefits ; not its letter but its spirit. Two facts are then evident 
from the foregoing : (1) That to identify the mode of baptism 
with the sacrament itself, we are obliged to go to heathen 
writers for our word in which to cast it. This is recognized 
by Rev. Carson a leader in the Disciple church in his book 
"on the defense of 'immersion' as baptism," when he says, 
"we are indebted to the heathen for our meaning of the word 
'baptizo' " and (2) that not the mode, but the effects of bap- 
tism are concerned in the origin of this sacrament, 

We wish to candidly inquire, Why do we need to go to the 
heathen for our meaning of that word which signifies this most 
holy sacrament ? Is it possible that its true significence is 
not to be found in the Bible? If our conclusions are to be 
consistent with the real import and meaning of the gospel at 
every point, we must seek from its pages the forms in which 
to cast them and not from those of heathen writers. If this 
holy act is to be understood it can only be so, by a study of 
its significance at the hands of the leadership indicated in the 
Bible. The views of the heathen should have no weight with 
bible students on Christian sacraments, a1 Least. 

And again: if the form of any ordinance of the Bible, de- 
termines its value; if the manner in which we conduct it, 
determines its contribution to the soul, we fear some radical 



— 92 — 

changes must be made at other points than that of baptism. 
At the institution of the Lord's Supper no woman was present: 
only the Apostles and Jesus. Also the position of the men was 
a reclining one. Also the mere fact of eating bread and drink- 
ing wine does not constitute the Lord's Supper. It is some- 
thing more than that — as we shall presently see. So water may 
be poured, sprinkled or we may be dipped a thousand times and 
yet not be baptized. If we are to be consistent, we should ex- 
clude all women from the Lord's Table and recline instead of 
kneel or stand. Neither do we conform, in form and words, 
our prayers to the Lord's Prayer. This does not, however, 
invalidate prayer. 

Thus a man may be immersed till he touches the bottom 
and have a classical or heathen baptism but not necessarily a 
Christian one. It takes something more than a mere dipping 
or even sprinkling to constitute a real bibical baptism. 

THE BIBLE AND BAPTISM. 

With the Bible then as our guide, we shall hear what it 
has to say on this point (1st) HOW WAS JESUS BAPTIZED? 
It is most natural to reason the proper mode — if any one in par- 
ticular — of baptism from that which marked the baptism of 
Jesus. In Matthew 3 :16, we have the words which apparently 
express the mode as that of immersion; "and Jesus when He 
was baptized went up straightway out of the water etc. ' ' This 
quotation is from the St. James Version of the Bible. The re- 
vised version states however that "He went up straightway 
'from' the water." This shatters the former conclusion and 
shows clearly that no possible significance can be attached to 
these words so far as denoting the specific mode of the bap- 
tism of Jesus. It is weighty evidence — as we shall presently 
see — against any conclusion, announced as final, that has no 
firmer basis than a phrase or sentence of words. We must 
have a more solid foundation if it is to stand the test. 

And then again the words 'Straightway, out of the water' 



— 93 — 

cannot indicate the mode of baptism in any sense of the case, 
consistent with sound reason. ,A study of the scene in Acts 
8 :38, will plainly show this conclusion to be correct. It is 
said of Philip and the Eunuch, that "they went down both 
into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized 
him, and when they were come up out of the «water etc." 
Now if the phrase 'down into and up from' signifies immersion, 
then the Bible must be wrong in its conclusion relative to the 
baptism of the Eunuch.' For this is said of both Philip and the 
Eunuch, that 'they both went down into — and came up out 
of and has just as much value for one as for the other. It 
means then that if the Eunuch was down under the water, 
then Philip must have been also ; and in that case how could 
there have been any baptism? But the Bible says the Eunuch 
was baptized and hence must have been by some other mode 
than that of imersion. 

Christ we believe was baptized by some other mode than im- 
mersion. What was that mode? In Heb. 9:11, we read, "but 
Christ being come an high priest of good things to come;" in 
Numbers 8 :5-7, we are told how the high priest was set apart 
to his holy office, "and then shalt thou do unto them, to 
cleanse them; sprinkle water of purifying upon them etc." 
Christ then being the great high priest, is inducted into his 
office by the 'sprinkling of water.' He recognizes the rela- 
tion to the Mosaic law when He says (Matthew 3:15) "suffer 
it to be so now : for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteous- 
ness." 

In Isaiah 52:15 we read this utterance of the prophet rela- 
tive to Christ: "and He shall sprinkle many nations." It 
was in this book of the Bible that the Eunuch was reading 
when Philip met him. What words here give him the idea of 
baptism which he asked of Philip ? It must have been this refer- 
ence of the prophet to Christ to "sprinkle many nations :" also 
m John 1 :25 we hear the Pharisees asking this question of 
John the Baptist, "Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not 



— 94 — 

that Christ nor Elias neither that prophet ? ' ' Not only then did 
the Eunuch conceive of the Christian baptism from his reading 
of Isaiah 52 :15, but likewise the Pharisees. In John 1 :33, the 
apostle states, "upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descend- 
ing — the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." 
We gather from these statements of scriptures that when- 
ever Christ baptized it was by either 'sprinkling' or 'pouring,' 
and that neither did He baptize nor was He baptized by 'im- 
mersion. ' 

2nd. HOW DID JOHN BAPTIZE? Without drawing the 
conclusion — which we could very reasonably, — that the mode 
of Christ's baptism must have been that by which John bap- 
tized, let us see what the divine Word has to say on this point. 
In Luke 1:76, we are told that John "shall be called the 
Prophet of the Highest." As such then since the law under 
which he was born, lived and died, not requiring — nor even 
mentioning — dipping or immersion, he must have practiced 
either pouring or sprinkling as the mode of his baptism. There 
being absolutely no record in the Old Testament of a case of 
purification by ' immersion ' why should John now as the prophet 
of God, introduce another method never ordered by Him? 
That the significance of baptism in the New Testament circle 
was purification, and not its mode, is evidenced by a glance 
at John 3 :25-26, with John 4 :1, where the Pharisees speak of 
baptism in connection with its relation to purifying. From 
Ezekiel 36 :25, we learn that this act of purification was ac- 
complished by the ' ' sprinkling of clean water. ' ' 

Here we see (1) that the Jews of the New Testament ex- 
pected Christ to 'sprinkle' because they confused John with 
Him; and (2) that they were baptized by him because they 
knew it to be in perfect accord with the method of moral 
cleansing prescribed in the law of Moses — which by the way 
was the only Bible they possessed — and which had the sanction 
therefore of God. 

It is stated in John 3:23, that John was baptizing in Enod 



— 95 — 

near Salem because there was "much water there." The 
greek word for "much' relates to the gathering together of 
small streams — and this is the case at the spot where he had 
gone to baptize. It can signify then 'many waters' just as well 
as 'much water, ' which all shows, as we noted on a former 
page, that the mode is not construed from any reading of a few 
words. Neither does the phrase 'in Jordan' give us a sure 
conclusion for 'immersion.' The Greek preposition 'en' is 
translated in the Bible, 'at' 100 times and 'by' 150 times, so it 
is evident that this little word cannot be accused of creating 
all the discussion about the mode of baptism. No ! We must 
conclude that John's baptism must have been either sprinkling 
or pouring or else he did not stand related to Christ and 
the law of the past as the Bible states. If he is to inaugurate 
a new order, it cannot be by forsaking the past. 

3rd. WHAT WAS THE MODE EMPLOYED BY THE 
APOSTLES AND LEADERS OF THE EARLY CHURCH? 

It would also be natural for us to conclude that their mode 
must have been that of John and Christ. We are not satisfied 
however with this short-cut route, and will again consult the 
Bible for our answer. We have called your attention to the 
baptism of the Eunuch by Philip, recorded in Acts 8 :38-39. 
We simply wish to add this note that, the Greek preposition 
'eis' here rendered 'into' is rendered 'to' and 'unto' six times 
in this same chapter. There are more than 200 different separ- 
ate meanings for this small word alone ; the same difference of 
translation also can be noted about the preposition 'ek' trans- 
lated here 'from.' 

Their mode also must have been determined in some measure 
by the mode of baptism of the Holy Spirit, which occurred on 
the day of Pentecost. This was promised to the Apostles by 
Christ (Acts 1:15) just before His departure from them. In 
Acts 2 :16-17, it is related by Peter in his wonderful sermon, — 
at which time 3000 souls were converted — that this manifesta- 
tion of the Spirit was in accordance with prophecy. (Joel 



— 96 — 

2:28, "that it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, 
I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh etc.) " This pouring 
Christ called 'Baptism' as noted in Acts 1:15. The disciples 
could hardly have misunderstood the correct mode — if any 
was to prevail — from these words of the Christ and the prophet. 
We are not contending for any one mode, but rather against 
the claim that baptism is identical and confined in its benefits 
to the mode of its administration. The Lutheran Church prac- 
tices 'sprinkling' because of its greater consistency and con- 
venience, and not because it rejects immersion. 

Then we wish to inquire, How could the 3000 converted 
on Pentecost have been immersed ? How could Paul have been 
immersed at his baptism, when to this day travelers tell us 
there is not so much as a bath tub in Demascus? How could 
the Philipian jailor have been immersed in the jail? There is 
no positive warrant either in reason or revelation that can 
dictate the mode of the baptism of these individuals. 

Many quote Romans 6 :3-4, and Collossians 2 :12, as evidence 
in favor of imersion. What is St. Paul talking about in these 
verses of scripture? It is not the mode of baptism but its 
benefits. For it is true that in baptism every man puts 
on the fruits of Christ's death and resurrection; otherwise it 
is no baptism, no matter how much water is used. Then the 
work by which man comes into these benefits, whereby "he 
puts on Christ" is not the work of man but of the Holy Spirit. 
In Galatians 3 :27, this conclusion is also evident. It was not 
the death of the body; neither was it the physical putting 
on of Christ, but the death of sin and consequent spiritual 
putting on of Christ. Neither does the figure used in Romans 
6:1-7 indicate the mode of baptism-. For if 'buried with 
Christ' refers to the putting of the candidate for baptism 
under the water, why bring him out again? Then keep in 
mind the wording of the 3rd verse. It speaks about being 
'baptized into Jesus Christ and into His death' and the 19th. 
verse of Colossians 2nd. Chapter: "buried with him in bap- 



— 97 — 

tism." Please note that it is not 'buried in water,' but 'in His 
death'; not 'with water but' but 'with Him.' The reference 
of Paul in 1. Cor. 10:1-2, certainly cannot be strained to indi- 
cate that baptism is immersion. The Israelites were not im- 
mersed in the sea, but went over on the dry land. 

CONCLUSION. 

1. That there is no specific mode indicated in the Bible and 
if any at all, it is sprinkling and pouring. 

2. That no necessity faced either Christ or the disciples 
calling for a plain statement in which the precise mode for 
baptism would be given. The Old Testament was before them, 
and while 'He came not to destroy but to fulfill the law,' 
there was no need of instituting another mode for purification 
than that of sprinkling or pouring as indicated on its pages. 

3. By the analogy of scripture it is evident that immersion 
is indicated nowhere. To seek heathen interpretations is 
dangerous. 



STUDY XV. 

THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM: ITS SUBJECTS. 

Acts 16:14-15 — "And a certain woman named Lydia attended 
unto the things which were spoken of Paul." "And 
when she was Baptized and her household, she besought us, 
saying if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come 
unto my house and abide there. And she contrained us. 



» > 



As touching the subject of baptism one question yet remains 
unanswered: it is that which concerns the subjects of baptism. 
The adult we have seen without question stands in need of 
baptism in his unregenerate state. There is no quarrel on the 
necessity of baptism for the one who has come to the years 
of accountability. It is when we consider the state and neces- 
sity of the infant and child that we differ in our conclusions. 
This question presents a problem to the moral leadership of 
the church. 

With the conception of baptism in mind, 'that its function 
is to offer, apply, confer and seal divine grace' two questions 
arise: (1st) Does the child stand in need of divine grace. Is 
he not already within the circle of that grace ? This conclusion 
arises we are sure either because of a misunderstanding as 
to the real nature of the child, or from ignorance as to the 
real attitude of God toward sin. Both have been noted under 
the study on sin, and the conclusion reached was, that the 
child comes into the world a sinner. Since sin is not an act, 
simply, but a nature, or a condition, it is easy to see how that 
baptism would then include the Child. 

(2nd.) Does the child possess that by which he can appro- 
priate the benefits of baptism? This calls in question his abil- 
ity to grasp grace even though offered to him through a means 
divinely chosen to confer grace. It in short puts the child 
without the pale of the plan of the present gospel and makes 
him dependent upon another gospel for his salvation. For it 



— 99 — 

is evident that the child, as a rational and immortal creature 
tainted with sin even though not responsible, does stand in 
need of salvation, and the only question is as to the time and 
condition for the same. 

It is evident then that two things are necessary that bap- 
tism may be a real means whereby the individual comes into 
saved relationship with God: (1) Faith; and (2) Non-resist- 
ance. That the child possesses the latter no one will deny. 
He is not in a position to oppose the offer of God's favor, and 
stands as a passive vessel before Him. His whole life is open 
to all kinds of material impressions; it must likewise be open 
in a larger manner to spiritual ones. If the facts of the earthly 
can come into his life because of his inability to oppose their 
entry, why not the entry of the moral facts as well? That 
the child possesses also faith and is a fit subject for baptism 
and was considered so by the Church from its beginning to 
the present we believe to be true. 

THE TESTIMONY" OF THE WORD OF GOD. 

There are three propositions we must face : First. That 
the child dying unbaptized is lost. This not only grates on 
our nerves and creates an emphatic denial, but seems to be 
most preposterous in view of what we have learned relative 
to the worth of man and the being of God. If our future state 
is to depend upon our attitude toward Jesus Christ, then 
how could He be what He is and still condemn the infant to 
be lost because he has never had an opportunity to accept 
Christ as his Savior? No; we believe that God, while making 
provision for the adult, has also comprehended the infant in 
His plan. Second. That the child is saved by another gospel, 
than the one announced by Christ. Paul says in Galatians 
1:8, "But though we, or an angel from heaven preach any 
other gospel unto you than that which we have preached 
unto you, let him be accursed." This is conclusive evidence 
that the child is included in the present plan of salvation. 

Third. That he is to be saved by the gospel of Jesus Christ 



— 100 — ■ 

We must go then to this Holy Word to ascertain his place and 
his qualifications for salvation as outlined by both law and 
gospel. Divine revelation and sacred history here ought to 
be the deciding factor and not a psychology, the product 
many times of an unregenerate mind. 

When we state that the child has faith let us keep in mind 
our definition of faith on a former page. We saw that it was 
not a mere intellectual assent to a mere statement in the 
Bible; neither was it the mere acceptance of a historical fact. 
We saw that it was moral surrender: this is its essential and 
fundamental significance. That the child has faith after this 
order can be seen in noting the attitude of any child towards 
the parent. Take the child in the dark, and with a stranger 
he will cry: with his mother he feels safe and with his arms 
around her neck and his head pillowed on her bosom he feels 
at peace. 

Keep in mind that it takes just as much argument to dis- 
prove faith in the child, as to prove it. No greater burden 
rests with the man who accepts the child as having faith, for 
proof, than with him to reject the same. For if you say 'the 
child does not have faith,' it is my perogative to ask that you 
prove to me that he does not have it. 

But then the Bible has spoken on this very point, and above 
reason we shall gladly place its conclusions. It ought to be 
the final arbiter and council on any matter that so finally and 
so vitally affects the interests of the child. In Matthew 18:6, 
Jesus says, "but whoso shall offend one of these little ones 
that believe in me it were better that a millstone be hanged 
about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the 
sea.' 1 The disciples had quarreled about their place in the 
new kingdom. He calls a little child into their midst and sets 
him up as an example of greatness. It is of this child he is 
speaking. , 

Again in this same place, the third verse. He states "ex- 



— ioi — 

eumcision 'by faith' and since this element qualifies the indi- 
vidual for baptism, he must have had the same in mind in 
this statement. If the child then was a member of the Church, 
under the law, why can he not be likewise under the gospel 
cept ye be converted and become as a little child, ye shall not 
enter into the kingdom of heaven." It is evident here that 
(1st) Jesus recognized the element of faith in the child, and 
(2nd) that He also recognized him as possessing the qualities 
by which not only himself but the adult as well must be 
saved. In other words Jesus states that the child life and 
quality is the norm of entry into the kingdom. 

In Mark 10 :13-16, we have the beautiful scene of Jesus 
blessing the little children. In this scripture we have a most 
important verse; it is the 15th: "Whosoever shall not receive 
the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter there- 
in." This when analyzed likewise evidences the place of the 
child life in the economy of God. We now ask, How does 
the child come into the kingdom? If his method of entry into 
the favor of God is the basis for the same in the adult, it is 
most necessary that w T e find how the child comes into the 
same. It is urged, that we do not know. But we do know 
how the adult comes in, and from this we conclude that bap- 
tism must also be the way for the child, since the way for both 
is the same as stated in the above scripture. 

And then what is the child, but the potential man ? Has it 
come to pass that our responsibility ends with our fulfillment 
of duty to the actual, and does not extend to the potential as 
well? Is this the view that the state, and society in general 
take of it? Are we excused when we meet only the present 
needs of the child as a member of government and society? 
Are we not responsible for his future well-being as well? 
And is any man able to determine what his possibilities are 
or what his capacity will develop? If these are matters of 
mystery in the child life, why do we not accept the verdid 
of Jesus on the child and his ability to apprehend divine 



— 102 — 

grace? Why call in question his possession of faith simply 
because it does not result from the test we have given it in 
our psychological laboratory? Is our psychology equal to 
the task of the child nature and child nurture? It certainly 
cannot be trusted with the child except as based on the divine 
Word of God. 

But we wish again to inquire, whence comes this element by 
which the child is to apprehend divine favor? Is faith a 
product of our own making, or does it come from without? 
Ephesians 2:8, settles this question" for us: "For by grace are 
ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It is the 
gift of God." Now if God must give me faith whereby I who 
am an adult, am to apprehend the gospel savingly, what stands 
in the way of His giving the same to the child, who has as 
yet not come to the time where he can pass judgment on his 
acts in the light of the gospel? Is it possible that God can 
extend this gift to me, but not to my child? What limit is 
there recorded in the Bible — except that of open opposition 
by men — to God's power to confer this favor on any one? 
But you cry, Mystery! It is the cry of Nicodemus. But 
listen to the reply of Christ: "the wind bloweth where it 
listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell 
whence it cometh and whither it goeth: so is every one — 
child or adult — that is born of the Spirit." Paul anticipates 
this same fact when he says in Romans 9:20, "Nay but, 
man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing 
formed say to Him that formed it, why hast thou made me 
thus?" No more mystery surrounds the bestowal of grace 
in infant baptism than prevails in that of the adult. 

Then again the place of the child in the new covenant is 
based upon his place in the Old Testament Church. The male 
child was circumcised the eighth day or he was cut off. This 
was in obedience to the covenant made by God with Abraham 
and recorded in Genesiss 17 :9-14. In Deuteronomy 29 :9 and 
15, we again find the place of the child to be fixed within the 



— 103 — 

Church. That God has made a covenant with infants is be- 
yond question. That circumcision is supplanted in the New 
Testament Church by baptism, is stated by Paul in Colossians 
2 :11-12. In Romans 3 :30, the apostles speak about the cir- 
which is a better thing. If he was a part of that which was 
imperfect and incomplete, why not of that which is perfect 
and complete? 

It is true there is no specific command in the Bible, to 
baptize children. But we inquire, — in view of the place of 
the child in the covenant of God — was there any need of any 
express command on the part of Christ? That children were 
in the Church by circumcision was known to every Jew and 
Gentile. If baptism is the new method of entry under the 
new economy, there w T as no need for Him to declare a law 
that had been in force for centuries. Circumcision was the 
cleansing of the body; baptism the washing of regeneration. 

Then_ again we inquire if the child was a member of the Old 
Testament Church, — and the Church of God has never been 
other than one — how was he debarred from membership in the 
one revealed in Christ? We ask, again, where is it stated 
that he was no longer to be included in the new covenant 
perfected in Jesus Christ, and when was it done ? Has either 
the Child or God changed and if not, why is he not a part of 
the Christian Church as he was of that existing under the 
promise to Abraham? Is there any place in the Bible — or 
elsewhere — where the statement is made by which God author- 
ized their expulsion from His Church? Then if not, what 
right have we, simply because the case does not fit into either 
our ignorance or studied and man-made machinery, to refuse 
him a place among the people of God. We answer, not any. 
Who is it that is offending these little ones but him who is 
refusing them their rightful place in the Church, through 
God's appointed means of baptism? The teaching which 
throws the child out of the Church by refusing to give it bap- 
tism, is arbitrary, and unchristian. 



— 104 — 

Not only have we evidence in the Bible but also in sacred 
history, that the child was to be baptized. The Church 
fathers — or preachers of the early Church — have spoken on 
this point. Origin taught, "that the Church received from 
the apostle the injunction to give baptism even to infants 
according to the saying of our Lord concerning infants.'' 
Irenaeus writes, "Christ came to save all: infants, little ones, 
children, youths, and persons of mature age." 

Justin Martyr states that during his time, "aged persons 
had been disciples of Jesus from their infancy." 

The word household also carried with it always the evi- 
dence of children. In the Syriac New Testament we read 
Acts 16:15, "she (Lydia) was baptized with her children." 
In Acts 16:31, the word ' house' is literally translated 'chil- 
dren. ' Acts 16 :33 says, ' ' and was baptized he and all his, 
straightway." The next verse states that, "he rejoiced with 
all his house." It is plainly evident from these instances in 
the early Church, that infant baptism was not only practiced 
but urged by the leaders, who stood separated by only a few 
years from the Apostles and Christ Himself. In none of the 
writings of the early Church Fathers, do we find any opposi- 
tion to infant baptism; whatever difference of opinion did 
exist was on the 'time' of baptism and not on the practice. 

We are not however contending that the child that dies 
unbaptized is lost. While we believe that it is the plan of 
God, fully to include the child within the provisons of His 
grace, yet where it is withheld from enjoying its benefits, — 
not because of his own act but of that of another — He will 
provide for him in the mystery of His own love. 

But the responsibility must rest somewhere. It must be on 
the parent. He is not only responsible for his child to the 
state and society, but to God as well. Any damage the child 
makes to property, etc., must be met by the parent. He is 
obliged to give him an education — despite his opinions about 
education — and if he is negligent the law sees that he meets 



— 105 — 

the same in full. The only difference in evidence, is that with 
the one there is a visible police power and authority; while 
in the other no such power is evident. The great question 
then with the parent is not whether your child will be saved 
or lost if dying unbaptized, but how will you be able to meet 
the great responsibility that is yours in the neglect of this 
matter. You in a sense are guilty of interfering in the plan 
of God in behalf of the child, which, even though you be its 
parent, you have no right whatever to do. 

Do not arraign your judgment against the eternal plan of 
God. It is no small thing when God has indicated on every 
page of His recorded history with man, both under the prophet 
and under His Son, His desire and plan for the spiritual nur- 
ture of the child, for you to step in and dictate otherwise. 
If it is your child by natural birth, it is His more by the 
spiritual birth which He has provided in the gift of His 
Son. It is time when ignorance, indifference and prejudice 
should give way to the interests of the child and the full 
realization of God's plan in and for his life. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

1. That the child being born in sin, is a subject of baptism. 

2. That the child possesses the two requisites, faith and 
passivity, for entry into the kingdom of grace. 

3. That it is the divine intention that he be a member of 
the Church through the same avenue as the adult. 

4. As a member of the Old Testament Church, he must 
also be a member of the New Testament Church in the absence 
of anv command of God wherebv he is excluded. 



STUDY XVI. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

I. Corinthians 10:16 — "And the cup of blessing which we 
bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The 
bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body 
of Christ?" 

In approaching the study of the Lord's Supper we are to 
contemplate one of the highest, if not the highest, of the 
mysteries of Christian faith. We are very apt to conceive of 
it as an isolated event, as a separate act pointing back to a 
certain part in history, but having neither connection with 
the past, nor relation with the future. This is not the case, 
since it is linked, in fact, with the whole history of divine 
revelation from Adam till now. 

The idea of a sacrament is not confined to the few centuries 
of history that gather around the Christian Church. The 
idea of a sacramental eating of death is in the history of the 
first man in the garden of Eden. Two trees of special men- 
tion were there : the tree of Life and the tree of the knowledge 
of Good and Evil. The loss in the garden was the loss of the 
Sacrament of Life. This was the real paradise lost. The 
paradise regained, was when Christ sealed, true and valid 
for man, the promise of God to the woman. It was when He 
with His own blood proved as sure "that the Bread that I 
will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the 
world." If a tree was the center of death in the garden; a 
tree (the cross) must be the center of life on Calvary. As 
man lost his dominion through the eating of the tree of 
death in the garden; now to regain that dominion he must 
eat of this tree of life. 

We wish to remind you at this point, that the Symbolical 
here finds no application, since you will note that it was 
through the 'tree' that God communicated death: so through 

106 



— 107 — 

the 'tree of life,' which is Christ, man is to have life. If man 
fell through disobedience: he must return through obedience. 

This is not only the lesson of Eden; it is the eternal law of 
the Cross. The first sin unto death was man's refusal to fol- 
low the letter of God's Word; the first step into eternal life 
must come when man returns to confidence and accepts that 
Word. If the act of the first man that alienated him from 
God was a refusal of His authority over him; His return will 
come only as he accepts that authority re-emphasized by 
Jesus Christ. 

Standing at the beginning of the new dispensation then we 
have the new Sacrament of life. We shall see also that it 
can be made the sacrament of Death. At the beginning of the 
Old Dispensation we had both the Sacrament of death and life. 
Thus as the Sacrament of the garden was intended to be a 
channel of divine life; so that of the Lord's Supper. The one 
brought life, as personal and innocent contact with God ; the 
other brings life in terms of Jesus Christ. 

ITS POWER. 
The sacrament of the Holy Supper has not only an earthly 
but a heavenly side as well. Bread and wine on the one hand ; 
body and blood on the other. Here we are facing some of the 
greatest thoughts of divine revelation. We are truly treading 
on Holy Ground. There is in the Lord's Supper; (1) Bread. 
It is a natural food for man and belongs to all men. Since 
time began and man to live, bread has stood for life. It is 
known as the staff of life. Its contribution to the health and 
well-being of the body is such that we cannot omit this ele- 
ment of food from our consideration. (2) Wine. It is the old 
symbol of vigor, strength, peace and joy. It stood for a full 
life. It was Jesus who said "I am the true vine" These 
constitute the earthly elements. (3) Flesh. It is the basis of 
life. (4) Blood. This is that life of which the flesh is the 
basis. In Genesis 9 :4, the Jews are commanded not to eat 
flesh containing blood, since blood was conceived as 'life' or 



— 108 — 

'soul.' This is a result of the extreme reverence for life and 
out of which grew the practice of eating the body of the 
sacrifice, but drinking only a symbol for its blood. 

The sacrament of the Lord's Supper however, is not a 
sacrifice. While it is true that it bears resemblance to it, 
yet it is not identical. In sacrifice, man offers to God; in a 
sacrament, God offers to man. To identify them in the Lord's 
Supper is to do so at the expense of truth. While it is true 
we have the elements in the Supper that constitute the sacri- 
fice, yet it is one not offered by man. It was offered by 
Christ, and through the Holy Supper its benefits are con- 
veyed to the believer. If he stated "this is the New Testa- 
ment (or covenant) in My Blood," it was not to constitute the 
Supper a sacrifice, but only to apply the benefits that come 
from the sacrifice, which He Himself was. 

In the account of the institution of the Lord's Supper 
(Matthew 26:17-30), Jesus speaks of it as 'the passover.' 
Thus He links it together with that great feast of the Jews. 
It not only carries with it somewhat the significance of this 
feast, but was instituted at the time of the celebration of 
the feast in the Holy City. For at this time in Jerusalem was 
being celebrated this great Passover feast. It commemorated 
the deliverance of the children of Israel from the hand of the 
destroying angel (Exodus 12:21-28), and marked a great epoch 
in their history. It was typical of deliverance and redemp- 
tion, and it was the wish of Jesus to eat in reality which the 
other signified in type. As the lamb — the type — was slain 
according to the instructions of God ; so He was to be that 
lamb which the former typified. 

The points in common in these two 'Passovers' were (1) at 
the passover of the Jews a lamb was to be killed : Christ was 
that lamb. Exodus 12:3 says, "that they shall take to every 
man a lamb." It was John the Baptist who cried out to his 
disciples upon seeing the approach of Jesus, "Behold the 
lamb of God." (John 1:29), John the apostle when on the 



— 109 — 

Isle of Patmos saw, "in the midst of the elders stood a lamb." 
He heard the music of heaven and the burden of its .song 
was, 'Worthy is the Lamb'." 

(2) The lamb was a type of perfection. Christ was truly 
perfect. "Ye were redeemed with the precious blood of 
Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot" (I. Peter 
1:12). 

(3) The slaying of the lamb was a type of redemption. 
Christ was slain and in truth is that redemption : ' ' Thou 
wast slain and hast redeemed us to God — Worthy is the Lamb 
that was slain" (Rev. 1:6-7). 

(4) The Passover symbolized a sacrifice : Christ was 
that sacrifice (Hebrews 9:14-10; 8-10). 

(5) The Paschal Supper was a "natural communion of the 
type; the Lord's Supper is a supernatural communion of the 
substance" (I. Corinthians 10:16). 

Here then we conclude that in Christ we have the true 
Paschal Supper. The Passover of the old is supplanted by its 
fulfillment in the new. The institution of the Holy Supper 
marks this transition and establishes the surety to all man- 
kind to come of His continual presence to faith. If "He was 
to be with them even unto the end of the world," this is His 
chosen means of the presence. If then to feed upon the 
Paschal Lamb — and by this eating they were assured of 
divine power — was the grand object of the feast, it is cer- 
tainly significant that to obtain this same blessing in the 
Lord's Supper, we must also eat His flesh and drink His blood. 
He must have had the Supper in mind — which was not as 
yet instituted — when He laid down the law of all true life in 
these words, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and 
drink of His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My 
flesh and drinketh of My blood hath eternal life''' (John 
6:53-54). 

This brings us to what we believe to be the teaching of the 
New Testament upon this great Christian feast, No small 



— 110 — 

amount of discussion has centered around it, and yet we feel 
sure very few fully realize the scope of its aim neither do 
many grasp its true import for the soul. We wish to lay 
down five facts which are true of this sacrament. 

1. That the true body and blood of Christ are the sacra- 
mental objects. 

2. That they are truly present in the Lord's Supper. 

3. That they are truly present under the form of bread 
and wine. 

4. That being present under this form they must be possible 
of communication. 

5. That thus communicated they are thus received by all 
partaking 1 of the Lord's Supper. 

(1) By true body, we mean the actual body of Christ, and 
not an imaginary or an ideal one: "this is my Body, which is 
given for you." By true blood we mean, that blood which 
was the true basis of His* human life and by which we are 
redeemed: "this is my blood which is shed for you." The 
meaning of these words by which Christ institutes the Holy 
Supper, is "this which I offer to you, which you are one to 
receive and eat, is not only bread, but it is besides My Body. 
This which I offer to you and which you are to receive and 
drink is not only wine, but besides it is my blood." If the 
norm of teaching on this point is to be the Holy Scriptures 
rather than the decisions of councils, we are at a loss to know 
how another meaning can be attached to these words. To 
depart from the express meaning of the Bible is to turn every 
part of it into an allegory and without any serious value to us. 

(2) By the presence of His true body and blood in the Holy 
Supper, we mean not an ideal one. It is not a presence that 
is confined to either memory or even to faith alone. It is 
neither a sign merely now a symbol. We mean that Christ 
as the God-man is substantially present in the Supper, as to 
both natures. 

This is a result of the ability of the human nature to par- 



— Ill — 

ticipate in the privileges of the divine nature, and since it is 
possible for the divine to be everywhere, where it wills to be, 
it is likewise possible for the human nature of Christ, to be 
everywhere, and hence in the Holy Supper. The presence 
then of the God-man in the Supper is not a presence, simply 
to faith, but with Christ actually in the Supper. This means 
that Christ is not at the right hand of God alone — considered 
as a place — but can also be present in the Communion, not 
simply because of our faith that apprehends Him, but because 
He wills to be so. As the glorified Christ — both human and 
divine — then can be everywhere, it is not irrational to suppose 
that He can be likewise in the Supper. Hence His presence is 
not imaginary but most real. 

Then again the elements used by Christ at the institution 
of the Supper — bread and wine — evidence to the truth of our 
conclusion touching His real presence in the Supper. The 
one was to be eaten and the other drunk. No significance 
would result to this act if we rob these elements of this 
quality when identified with the body and blood of Christ. 
It is a wonderful analogy and yet wonderfully true, that by 
identifying His body and blood with the bread and wine the 
former participates in the office of the latter. If the one was 
to be eaten and drank, then the other must be. 

This is confirmed again by what Jesus called this New Sac- 
rament; it was a supper. Can we imagine any man having a 
supper simply with symbolical and imaginary bread and wine ? 
Or for that on anything not real? The very idea carries with 
it the other idea of eating that which was real and substantial. 
And then it is the Lord's Supper. It is hardly probable that 
when He said, "take eat this is My body, take drink this is 
My blood," that he intended that they should be eating and 
drinking that which did not actually exist. To say otherwise, 
amounts almost to an indictment of the motives, which led 
Christ to use these particular words. 

Then it is in the form of a will or testament. It was His 



— 112 — 

last bequest to those whom He had chosen to be the leaders of 
the Church of which He was to be the cornerstone. He had 
assured them of His continual presence in their midst, upon 
many occasions, and this sacrament as we noted before, was 
the precise fulfillment of that promise. As such then, we can- 
not stretch the imagination to conceive of this act other than 
a willing to them of His real body and blood instead of an 
imaginary body and blood. And then what value would such 
a presence have for the Church? In many Churches today 
where this view prevails, we see its logic. Its meaning and 
import has degenerated into nothing more than a mere -sham, 
and the Supper is neglected for other things. As men made 
light of the wedding feast of the King, so now do they make 
light of this feast of the King of kings. This interpretation 
which reduces the Supper into a mere display rather than a 
real communion, cheapens the gift of Christ and robs faith 
of its proper object. If His body and blood are the organs of 
His deity, then when He gives these in the Supper, He gives 
everything. 

Again man enters, in the Holy Supper, into covenant re- 
lation with God. The old covenant had been broken; this 
was the sealing of the new. But not so if the basis of this 
covenant and sealing is only sign and symbol. If the Lord's 
Supper does not bring to us the real Christ; if His presence 
here is not real, then why "Take — eat — take — drink." Why 
— if it is only the taking of a symbol — need there be any 
"eating and drinking?" Why not expose to public view the 
elements of the Supper at stated times? Or better still, 
display on the walls of the sanctuary a picture of the dying 
Christ? If we are looking for convenience and the modern 
order why trouble ourselves about any 'eating and drinking' 
at all? 

This procedure however is not without its witness in our 
day. Some Churches realizing the consistency of the "sign 
or symbol' theory of the Lord's Supper, have displayed over 



— 113 — 

the altar a painting revealing the sufferings and death of 
Christ whose significance is called to the mind by the pastor 
at stated times. Other sects in their haste to what they call 
moral simplicity, discard the sacrament altogether. But 
then what about the command of Christ "to take eat" — "take 
drink?" 

It is true that He says "this do in remembrance of Me." 
We need however, to take note of only two facts to explain 
its meaning: (1) This statement is confined to the record of 
only one of the gospel writers — St. Luke; and (2) it is ad- 
mitted by good authority, that it is not found in the older 
manuscripts, which take us close to the time of the insti- 
tution of the Supper. But then how could any one receive in 
the Supper the body and blood of Christ, without at the same 
time remembering Him in His life and death? This matter of 
'remembrance,' then is not an essential, but only a mere 
incidental matter. The significance then behind this Holy 
feast is vastly more than that implied in this mental act. Its 
import for man is altogether and positively spiritual. In it 
he receives something more than a mere memory of Christ : 
he receives Christ Himself. Any other conclusion does not 
accord consistently with what we feel could be the intent of 
Christ, and what would be His supreme motive in instituting 
this Supper which bears His name. 

(3) In stating the presence of Christ in the Supper, to be 
under the form of bread and wine, we do not mean to state 
that His body and blood in any manner become mixed up with 
the bread and wine. This is what is known as consubstantiation. 
Neither do we mean to state that the bread and wine, and the 
body and blood, become identical in the participation of the 
Supper. That is, that the bread turns into the veritable body, 
and the wine into the veritable blood, of Christ. This doctrine 
we repudiate equally as well as we do that just mentioned. 
This is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Hence 
they deny the wine in the Communion to the laity since they 



— 114 — 

do not want any of the blood of Christ to be wasted. They 
justify this teaching' by stating that since the 'bread' turns 
into the 'body' of Christ, and hence contains the blood, it is 
not necessary to drink of the wine, since in the eating of the 
'bread' the blood is likewise taken. But we answer that Christ 
said, "drink ye all of it." Also when He offered the wine 
He said, "this is My blood." When He offered the 'bread,' 
He simply said, "this is My body," the very explanation you 
see becomes the greatest argument against it. 

This turning of the bread and wine into the body and blood 
of Christ takes place — according to their teaching — at the 
time of their consecration. We declare however, that the 
true body and blood are present in the Supper, in, with, and 
under, the form of bread and wine. We declare "that the 
Holy Sacrament of the Altar is the true body and blood of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, instituted and commanded by the Word 
of Christ to be eaten and drunk by us Christians." That is, 
that the bread and wine are channels whereby the body and 
blood of Christ are communicated to us (I. Cor. 10:16-17). 
This does not then mean that they are either mixed in some 
manner or that they are identical in the Supper. The bread 
remains bread and the wine remains wine, but through these 
elements Christ as human and divine communicates Himself 
to us in the Holy Supper. 

This truth is emphasized when we again view the sacra- 
mental character of the tree of life in the garden of Eden. 
This tree was by divine appointment the channel of life: the 
other, the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, was the 
channel of death. Life was, in, through and under the one;v 
death, in, through and under the other. It was for this reason 
that man was expelled from the garden after his fall. For 
Him to have remained and to have tasted also of the tree of 
life in his fallen state would be to perpetuate the condition 
forever, into which he had fallen. The only way open then 



— 115 — 

for man's return was through a means consistent with his 
moral condition and his relationship with God. 

(4) That the body and blood being present in the Supper, 
they must possess the qualities of communication. The apostle 
Paul states, "the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the 
communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we 
break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (I. Cor. 
10:16-17). This we believe to be the true intent of the Lord's 
Supper. The Epistles are the great interpreters of the Gos- 
pels, and certainly here Paul is carrying out this idea. It is 
his conception of the real significance of the Holy Supper. 
Here we find his statement, not only as to what constitutes the 
real elements in the Supper but also their sacramental union, 
as well. We are well aware that this comes in conflict with 
many purely natural notions about the true office of the sacra- 
ment in hand. Some men say that it is the Holy Spirit which 
communicates the body of Christ ; Paul states that it is the 
'bread.' Some men state that the blood of Christ is communi- 
cated by the Holy Spirit ; Paul says it is communicated by the 
'wine.' It is because of this value that men of all times have 
spoken of the Lord's Supper as 'The Communion,' thus wit- 
nessing with the heart what the head many times has refused 
to say. 

(5) That the body and blood of Christ are communicated to 
all who participate in the supper. This means, that all men 
who partake of the bread and wine in the Holy Communion 
receive the same thing irrespective of their moral abilty to 
apprehend it. 

Faith then is not a pre-requisite to a reception of the body 
and blood of Christ in the Supper. There is this distinction 
however: to the man of faith, this reception makes for his 
salvation; to the man of unbelief it makes for his damnation. 
This is so, since faith is the receptive and appropriating 
agency. Christ is sacranientallv present to the one for salva- 
tion because of his personal appropriation of His benefits; to 



— 116 — 

the other, He is present to eternal death — not actively but 
passively — since the individual is unable because of a lack of 
faith, to make his own that which makes for eternal life. The 
Apostle Paul recognizes this element when he speaks about 
some " eating and drinking damnation to their souls, not being 
able to discern the body of the Lord" (I. Cor. 11:29). If the 
man of unbelief as well as the man of faith, did not receive 
the same when participating in the Supper, the idea of ' eating 
and drinking unworthily ' and hence that of ' damnation ' would 
be impossible. Faith does not put Christ in the Supper; it 
simply discerns and appropriates Him. 

The Holy Sacrament is not the privilege of a few. It has 
been instituted to comfort and strengthen all who confess 
their sins and who still thirst after righteousness. "The 
Lord's Supper was instituted for all believers who have been 
baptized and are able to observe it according to His com- 
mand." Who then is worthy to come to the Lord's table? 
We answer not the man of self-righteous spirit; neither the 
man who is impenitent. It is he who knows himself a sinner 
and who repents and asks God's pardon. It is the man then 
who recognizes his absolute dependence upon God for cleans- 
ing and subsequent strength. He is worthy who believes the 
words "given and shed for you for the remission of sins." 
This worthiness is not of ourselves, but it comes because of 
the free gift of God. 

But if its power lies specifically in what constitutes the real 
nature and design of the Holy Supper, this must in some man- 
ner be displayed in the results claimed for it. Jesus states 
that the blood present in the Supper is the same that was 
shed on the Cross, by which we have remission of sins (Mat- 
thew 26:28). The aim of the Supper and one of its immedi- 
ate results then is to seal this forgiveness for us. In it we 
have the assurance that His promise is true and sure. 

Here we have the great difference between the sacraments 
of baptism and the Lord's Supper. The former is that of 



— 117 — 

'invitation.' The latter that of 'confirmation.' The aim of 
the former is to start us in the new life; that of the latter to 
keep us in the new life. 

It is here then at this table that the young for the first time 
enter into the real benefits that flow from the Cross. Being 
baptized in their infancy and instructed in the pure Word of 
God, they have come into the Church — not by chance — but 
by the Biblical method of confirmation, and now for the first 
time stand within the holy precincts of this new life, as 
Christians. It is most fitting then that they should again 
renounce the devil and all his ways, by a confession sealed in 
the Holy Supper. 

ITS PREPARATION. 

With such a high and lofty conception of this sacred Sup- 
per, it is only reasonable to suppose that this element would 
be necessary. If our eating and drinking here has such far- 
reaching and eternal moral value, it behooves us to make 
careful preparation before coming to the same. We are ad- 
monished, "that if any man hunger, let him eat at home." 
This Holy Supper is not a common meal. Man is urged to 
examine himself and "so let him eat of that bread and drink 
of that cup" (I. Cor. 11:28). It is for this reason that many 
who should be strong in- the power of God, are mere babies, 
weak and puny. If we prejudge ourselves we shall not be 
judged of the Lord. "Self-examination is a diligent inquiry 
into the reality of our repentance, faith and. holy living." 
This is not only necessary from what we know of the char- 
acter of the Lord's Supper, but also from the express com- 
mands of God's word. 

It is for this reason that the Lutheran. Church has its beauti- 
ful service of public confession and absolution. It is called 
the Preparatory Service. It differs very greatly from the 
confessional of the Roman Catholic Church. In the first ser- 
vice, the confession is made open and in public; in the latter 



— 118 — 

one it is made in private — in the ears of a priest. In the 
former service it is made to God; in the latter it is made to a 
human individual. 

This service should be held each time before partaking of 
the Holy Supper, which should be often — we should say at 
least four times every year. We do not however favor the 
custom of weekly communion, as it tends to cheapen and 
make common, the Holy Sacrament. 

No man can neglect this Holy Sacrament without bringing 
shame to his Christ. To make light of it is to block our 
entrance to the kingdom of God, for in so doing we cast 
reproach upon Him who instituted it. It is to crucify Him 
afresh and bring Him to an open shame and rebuke before the 
world. In this feast He is not only your present friend, but 
the guarantee of your future. 

CONCLUSION. 

1. That in the Lord's Supper we have the true presence of 
the body and blood of Christ communicated through bread 
and wine as channels. 

2. That it is this true body and blood that we receive when 
at His table. 

3. That in the Holy Supper, forgiveness is sealed to us. 

4. That confession of sin should be made to God in pre- 
paration, before we present ourselves at the Lord's table. 

5. That all men who eat of the Supper irrespective of their 
faith, receive the 'body and blood' of Christ, but with not 
the same moral result in both. 



STUDY XVII. 
THE DOCTRINE OF LAST THINGS. 

Hebrews 9:27 — "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, 
but after this the judgment." 

It is most fitting that we should conclude these studies by 
an investigation into the witness of Holy Scripture upon those 
things that shall prevail when our earthly existence is at an 
end. We saw that man is a moral spirit, possessing a rational 
soul. That as such, he was not built for this span of a few 
years; his horizon does not end with the grave but on the 
contrary touches the very shores of eternity itself. He is a 
crcal urc whose outlook is not bound by the exigencies of 
time, but by the realities of immortality. It is natural then 
for us to want to lift the curtain of divine revelation and 
see what is in store for us in that land across the grave. It 
is not necessary to first prove that man w T ill live on the 
other side of the grave. Not only does reason set up proofs 
sufficient and beyond question, but the Scriptures as well. 
It everywhere reckons with man as a creature with a future 
after death. Its whole economy is built upon this assumption ; 
it assumes this as a fact. For if man is not immortal, then 
why the revelation of God in any shape or form? We may 
ask further why any God at all? It is our desire to consider 
the events at the end of life in the manner in which the Bible 
represents them to be, and we see at the head of the list : 

DEATH. 

This is a common heritage of all men. No man can escape 
it. It lurks everywhere and is no respecter of persons, [t is 
the withdrawal of the basis of life, the soul. It is called by 
different names: "a gathering unto their people" (Genesis 
25:8-17); "a departure in peace" (Luke 2:29); "a sleep" 
(Matthew 9:24). It stands as an eternal testimony to the 

119 



— 120 — 

awful catastrophe in the garden of Eden when our first par- 
ents fell from their high estate and brought death — both 
physical and spiritual — upon the race (Romans 5:12). 

Three causes are recognized in the Bible as the reason for 
death in the history of man. (1) The malice of the devil in 
leading man astray. (2) The guilt of man in continual sin- 
ning. (3) The wrath of God upon his sin. It is to be be- 
lieved that had not man sinned, and fallen from the presence 
of God, he would have been translated into heavenly happi- 
ness at the completion of this earthly life, without death. But 
because he "sinned death has come upon all, and even though 
Christ has died for us and made possible the joys of a blessed 
life after death, yet death is the way of all flesh since all 
flesh is sinful. This is the awful pathos of human life. 

At death, the body goes back to the earth from which it 
has come but the soul to God for judgment. It survives the 
dissolution of the body and begins an existence quite peculiar 
and all its own. Before death there is a mutual interchange of 
feelings between the soul and the body; but at death this 
ceases — the firm bond is broken. Where once the body shared 
the sufferings of the soul ; now it must share them alone. The 
soul now no longer acts through the body as an instrument 
but lives and subsists apart from it. 

The condition of the soul after death then is conditioned 
by its moral condition here. It will be happy or in misery, 
in the future as it has embraced salvation afforded in Jesus 
Christ. It is man's attitude toward Him that shall determine 
the character of his final estate. He is the measure of man's 
destiny and of his happiness in that future world. 

But another question arises here, 'What is the condition 
of the soul between the time of physical death and the resur- 
rection of the body? Is it a state of sleep, and insensibility? 
Does man go imediately into the personal — as over against the 
moral — presence of his Christ? Or is there an intermediate 
place of habitation for all souls? 



— 121 — 

Our conception of this matter is that there is an inter- 
mediate state of the soul. By this we mean that there is a 
'where' somewhere between the time of death and the resur- 
rection of the body — which we shall learn occurs at the final 
judgment — where the souls of the pious dead dwell. Our 
proof for this is (1st.) REASON. That which puts us in per- 
fect communication with this physical world is the fact that 
we have a physical body. To the extent that this body is 
perfect, will our touch with the world be perfect, showing that 
it is our body that puts us in correspondence with the world 
in which we live. Man as a spirit could not without a medium 
of comunication live in the world and be consistent with its 
life. This being true with man and this physical world, if he 
must have a body that corresponds with the world in which 
he lives that he may live in harmony with it, then by analogy 
he must have a body in which he is to live, if he is- to be in 
perfect harmony with the new world which he does at death. 
This is anticipated by the scriptures which teach the resur- 
rection of the body fitted as a temple for the redeemed soul 
of man. Man is not fitted to dwell in that ideal world at 
death. He does not possess the true medium of communica- 
tion, otherwise why need a body at all and what reason for 
the resurrection of the body. We see in this economy more 
than a mere mystery. It is one determined by the character 
of the soul and of the world in which it is to live forever. 

(2). REVELATION. The word of Jesus to the dying thief on 
the cross was, "today thou shalt be with me in Paradise." 
While we are aware of the oriental setting of this word, yet 
we wish to inquire, Was this an immaginary place? Was it 
a place that had no existence? When Jesus used this word. 
in giving comfort to the thief, did it have any meaning on his 
lips? Was Jesus holding out to the sufferer who was begging 
for mercy, only a figure of speech that had no reality in fact? 
We cannot imagine such a state or attitude of Christ toward 
the thief. If it was to have any comfort for him, it must 



— 122 — 

mean something. We connot conclude that Jesus was 'fool- 
ing' the thief into peace. 

We do not mean to state that the soul is asleep, for this 
we do not conceive to be true. We do wish however to state, 
that we believe the soul to be active and enjoying the presence 
of Christ, in a degree not possible here. But as to the ideal 
and personal presence of Christ, we do not think this possi- 
ble for the soul, before the final resurrection when it will be 
reunited with its glorified body. Neither do we imply a cer- 
tain kind of Purgatory, as do the Roman Catholics. Their 
purgatory is a state of preparation. We conceive of the state 
of the pious dead as fixed and settled forever. They assert 
the existence of five places for the future of the soul : 1. Hell, 
2. Purgatory, 3. Limbus puerorum — where the souls of un- 
baptized infants go, 4. Limbus Patrum — the abode of the 
saints of the Old Testament, 5. Heaven, three of which we 
must positively eliminate on grounds both of reason and revel- 
ation. 

THE RESURRECTION. 

As the soul of man survives after death, so also the body 
which will again be restored to life. This is most evident 
from the pages of Scripture, (Isaiah 26 :18, Daniel 12 :2, John 
5:28;11:23, 1. Cor. 15:12) and from what we know of the 
relation of the soul to the new world. It is to revelation that 
we must go for this fact of the Resurrection, and not to reason. 
Reason would deny not only this fact, but all others which 
transcend the range of the physical senses. To conceive of 
how the body that had been placed in the tomb and long ago 
reduced to ashes, or perhaps shattered to the winds or perhaps 
disolved by the waters of the sea, can be gathered together 
and reunited with the soul, is a staggering blow to reason. 
Had God's Word been silent on this fact, we do not believe 
that it would be a part of man's outlook upon the great un- 
discovered world beyond the grave. 



— 123 — 

This is the testimony of the divine Word: that every par- 
ticle of the body wherever found, will be collected together 
and made the dwelling place for the redeemed and glorified 
soul. (Romans 8:11:, I. Cor. 15:53:, 2. Cor. 5:4, Philipians 
3:21) The body then, that shall arise will be one endowed 
with new qualities. These attributes shall give it an endless 
existence, without need of support or nourishment. It shall 
be free indeed to progress in that eternal likness of Him, 
whose presence and glory shall be heaven and eternal joy. 
In other words the body of the resurrected will be spiritual 
and not natural; immortal and not mortal; incorruptible and 
not corruptible. (John 5:28-29, I. Cor. 15:42-44). 

The resurrection is a direct' result of the merits of the 
death and resurrection of Christ. It is through Him that we 
shall be reunited with our bodies. He is the first fruits of 
those that slept. This is specifically true of the pious dead. 
The bodies of the lost which will share in the resurrection 
fact, come forth more particularly because of Jesus as King; 
not as a mediator, but as a Judge. The true end of the resur- 
rection is to be found in its relation to the saved and not 
the lost. 

THE FINAL JUDGMENT. 

We might say that there are three judgments in the history 
of a man: that which is present in this life — for every ad is 
judged; that which takes place automatically at death — for 
"as the tree falleth so shall it lie;' 7 and that which shall 
characterize the final consummation of all things. It is the 
last one with which Ave have to do at present. This comes 
after the resurrection of the dead, (T. Thess. 4:16) and will 
terminate the career of the earth and of earthly things. It 
will be characterized by (1) a manifestation of divine glory 3 
which will display the justice and mercy of God. This life 
has witnessed many inequalities — the wicked prosper and the 
good suffer and are poor — but at this time they shall receive 



— 124 — 

justice at the hand of Him who knoweth all things and who 
knows not from the outside but from the heart. (2). The 
complete glorification of Christ. (Hebrews 2 :8, Matthew 
25:31). On the cross He was put to death as a malf actor, and 
numbered with the transgressors, but now He triumphs com- 
pletely over all His foes and is victor over hell, death, and the 
grave. (3). The exaltation to power of all the godly. In this 
life they suffer, are afflicted and punished by men. Then 
they shall be crowned by God as victors. If their life has been 
one of affliction we are told it shall not compare with the 
eternal glory that shall be revealed in the last day. (4). The 
completion of rewards and punishments. While we speak of 
this day as the 'Judgment', it is not that God will act as the 
judge, "For the Father Judgeth no man, but hath committed 
all judgment unto the Son. "(John 5:22) Jesus Christ is to 
be the judge, and at the appointed time — which is known to 
no one except the Father — He will appear for this office. 
(Acts 17:31) This judgment will include not only men but 
angels. (2. Cor. 5 :10) It will comprehend the devil and his 
angels who fell from their high position in heaven, (Jude 1:6) 
and are now reserved to that day. 

While it is true that no one knows the exact time of His 
coming for judgment, the Scripture has indicated some marks 
of the times which will be near the end. These are, the 
multiplication of heresies; seditions (Matthew 24:5) through- 
out (Mark 24: 6-5) the entire world; dreadful persecution of 
the godly (Matthew 24:9, Mark 13:9) ; the prevalence of open 
and defiant wickedness; (Luke 17:28-30; 19:8) the universal 
preaching of the gospel throughout the world. Matthew 
24:14, Malachi 4:2) Some teach the coming of Christ for a 
visible reign before the final judgment, for the establishment 
of a kingdom on earth under the control of the elect for 1000 
years. This is not generally accepted but rather that the 
second advent of Christ, the general resurrection, the final 
judgment and the end of the world are immediately united 



— 125 — 

and the one follows the other without any interval of time. 
His kingdom is not of an earthly character; it is to be su- 
premely moral or spiritual. 

THE END OF THE WORLD. 

After the final judgment we are told the world will be de- 
stroyed by fire. (2. Peter 3 :12) the method and process, man 
is however not able to understand. This is reserved by God 
within His own councils. If He made the world out of noth- 
ing, it is to this state that it shall be reduced. It will not be a 
mere transformation or change of form in the world merely 
but a total annihilation of its substance. (Luke 21:33: Rev. 
20:11). 

ETERNAL DEATH FOR THE LOST AND ETERNAL LIFE 
FOR THE SAVED. 

The former are given over to eternal punishment and the 
latter to everlasting joy. It will mean the separation forever 
of the Good and the Bad. These moral conditions are repre- 
sented in the Bible by places: heaven and hell. They repre- 
sent the final abode of the saved and the lost. 

"What is heaven? It is life in the presence of God, free 
from evil, and full of good. It is companionship with Him 
whom we recognize as our Creator and whom we worship as 
our Father and our God. Eternal life is not so much length 
of years, as it is quality of life. It is not a life extending over 
countless millenniums, but a life which is intensive in its 
moral quality of goodness. It is worthiness to stand in the 
presence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Matthew 
25:34-40). 

What is Hell? This is an unpleasant word to many. We 
do not like to speak it. But it is a conception that has pre- 
vailed in all ages and among all peoples. From the history 
of the man of India, down through the Egyptian, the Babylon- 
ian, and the Persian, some conception of a place of final pun- 



— 126 — 

ishment has been evident. It seems to have been a matter 
of the moral consciousness of all men of all time. 

Its place then in the Bible is not surprising, in view of the 
revelation of Christ. Since it has been a matter of concern 
with all men, its fuller disclosure would be expected in the 
Bible and instead of attempting to read it out of its teaching, 
it would be better to more clearly understand it and its con- 
dition. 

This is particularly true of that of the New Testament. 
Here the word used is 'gehenna'. Outside of Jerusalem in 
the days of Jewish heathendom — that is when they had fallen 
from the worship of the true God and were worshipping idols 
— there was in the valley of Hinnon, an idol called by the 
name of the valley, into which the Jewish mothers cast their 
babes, to be burned as a sacrifice. From this the New Testa- 
ment writers drew their word for hell and it has in mora] 
value the significance, which the idol had for the physical. 

(Matthew 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 23:25:46) Not one of these 
statements speak of a provisional hell. There is not even 
the mere sign of anything like probation after death. They 
all speak with a note of finality that carries with it the 
thought of divine authority. Neither is there any thought even 
intimated of either restoration or of annihilation. 

This is true from what we learned of the nature of SIN. 
It is not an act, neither is it many acts : it is a nature. The 
great question then is not what does God impose upon me, but 
what am I taking with me into that other world? For be it 
remembered that hell was not provided for men, but for the 
devil and his angels. (Matthew 25:41) If man chooses to 
companion with the class of spirits whose end is so awful, 
how can he blame God for his condition? Man then in this 
sense makes his own hell, but it is a hell with moral import 
and whose destiny is fixed and final. 

To fix the blame then on God is to fail to remember what 
sort of creature you are. You are not a machine but a man; 



— 127 — 

a beiug possessed of a spirit and possessing moral qualities 
llial when disl roved and abused, make hell inevitable. Hell is 
not a place then fixed by an angry God in which to vent His 
displeasure upon whom He will. It is the creatiou of sin 
primarily and only so far as you allow yourself to share in its 
destiny will you fall under the displeasure of God. Man's 
punishment then is self-afflicted. 

Penalty then is not something imposed upon man by God ; it 
is an inherent result of sin. To think then that either God 
will at sometime after death restore the soul, that has sinned, 
to rightful relations with Him, or that after the end of the 
world the souls of men will be annihilated, is not only pre- 
posterous but the child of the devil. It is a position that is 
fostered and produced by that evil one who seduced our first 
parents into the calamity that has now befallen the entire race. 
It is evidence of gross ignorance both as to the true nature of 
sin and likewise as to the nature of both God and man. 

It is true that God is Love, but He is first holy and righteous. 
Love is His holiness defending itself. This is not however the 
question. The one that does concern us however is 
what kind of a creature must it be that can sin in 
the face of .so great love? It is not what must 
be the nature of a god who can see his creatures lost forever, 
but what must be the moral condition of the creature who 
can see all that love has done for Him and yet continually 
spurn its offers of grace and strength? If the choice of 
eternal life lies with man; the choice of eternal death must 
likewise rest with him. 

Hell then is not a mere external provision, but a moral re- 
sult. It is not a mere place of punishment either; it is this 
because of what it implies. Hell is the eternal consciousness 
of an eternal banishment from the presence of God. It is the 
anguish of one eternally, who feels the way to the presence of 
Him, in whose image he was made and whose nature he shares, 
forever blocked and sealed against him, by a nature fixed by 



— 128 — 

acts of his own choice. If you find the idea of a literal hell 
fire revolting, do not think that the awful burning of con- 
science will be any less in its intensity of suffering. To change 
the name is not to change the character. To state moral re- 
sults injnore cultured and polite terms is not to change their 
final import for the soul. 

Neither is the result effected by your belief or disbelief in 
the character of hell. The child did not believe the gun was 
loaded, but this disbelief did not effect the result which was 
his death. The "Word of God is responsible for the revelation 
of this truth and its voice is final and authority for all men for 
all time. The efforts to argue it from its place, by words and 
sentences, may prove somewhat satisfactory and bring a de- 
gree of peace for the present, but the inevitable is destined to 
come, if God and man are what we know them to be. 

Two questions naturally suggest themselves: (1st). Whether 
the saints will recognize each other in the life to come? We 
answer emphatically: yes, since that image that was ruined 
by sin, has been restored, and in perfect knowledge man will 
consider the facts of his new environment. (2nd). Will the 
joy of eternal life be clouded by the fact that the blessed will 
see their former friends and relatives tortured in hell? To 
this we answer emphatically: No. The absorbing fact for 
them will be the glory and presence of God and their will, 
will be in perfect harmony with His. Our medium of sight will 
not be the mortal imperfections of the flesh, but the moral 
perfections of the glorified man. Our affections then will not 
be carnal, but spiritual and will extend only to those who are 
beloved of God and whom He has made heirs of eternal life. 
These same questions however applied to the condition of the 
lost, will have the effect of the consciousness of the man who 
realized the quality of the prize he lost through his disobedi- 
ence, and which he will be compelled to admire and praise 
eternally. If the knowledge of the place made vacant by the 
departure of a loved one brings sorrow and anguish of heart, 



— 129 — 

how much more will that which realizes for the individual the 
value of the moral void in the soul, made possible by the ex- 
pulsion of God from its life? We estimate the former 
through the medium of a beclouded intelligence. Sin prevents 
us from properly realizing the meaning of the departure of a 
loved one. But our estimation and consequent knowledge of 
the latter is based upon a standard that rests in the light of 
eternal, unrestricted revelation. 

CONCLUSION. 

1. That death is a reality in the history of man. 

2. That at the second coming of Jesus Christ, the resur- 
rection of all dead and the translation of the bodies of all 
living at the time will take place. 

3. At this time all shall be judged by Christ, according to 
their attitude toward Him. 

4. That the righteous will enter into life eternal: the lost 
into a place of final punishment. 

5. That the final abode of the lost is fixed and is the result 
of man's attitude of friendship with sin. 

6. That Hell is a reality and to be accepted in the New 
Testament sense. 



APENDIX A. 

THE APOSTLE'S CREED. 

1. Peter 3:15 — "But sanctify the Lord God in your heart and 
be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh 
you a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and 
fear." 

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and 
earth. 

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was con- 
ceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered 
under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried; He 
descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the 
dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand 
of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to 
judge the quick and the dead. 

I believe in the Holy Ghost ; the Holy Christian Church ; the 
Communion of Saints; the Forgiveness of sins; the Eesurrec- 
tion of the body; and the Life everlasting. Amen. 

This is the briefest and perhaps the oldest of the Ecumenical 
—or universally accepted — creeds. It is called the 'Apostles 
Creed,' because it represents a concise form and summary of 
what they believed and taught. Its name then indicates not 
authorship but doctrine. The date of its writing is placed 
anywhere from 250 A. D. to 460 A. D. at Rome. The above 
form is the one in general use among Christian churches. 

There are two variations, however from this form: 1st. 
Instead of saying "He descended into Hell," some say that 
"He descended into the place of departed spirits." The former 
is the correct one, both from the original form of the creed, 
and as to its doctrinal value. The one designates a specific 
place peopled with souls of a certain moral character; the 
other is vague and indefinite. 2nd. Others change the phrase 
"in the Holy Catholic Church" to read "In the Holy Christian 

130 



— 131 — 

Church." The former form is the correct one and was displaced 
by the other form in the interests of harmony. Owing to the 
misunderstanding of the word 'Catholic,' — which means 'uni- 
versal' — the word 'Christian' was inserted in its stead. 

But the question arises, Why any creed at all? We are 
told that the Bible is our creed. The Bible is not a creed 
and cannot be in any sense of that term. The word 
'Creed' comes from the latin word 'Credo,' which means. "I 
believe." It is a short statement then of belief. As a state- 
ment then of Christian faith or belief, its basis must be the 
Bible. This being the case how then can the Bible be any 
man's creed? The very idea is ridiculous and absurd, and must 
have its nativity either in the land of gross ignorance or of 
prejudice. It evidences neither a mark of religious culture 
nor an intelligent touch with history. The creed is a result of 
a struggle : it is a landmark of a moral battle. The Apostles 
Creed was beyond doubt founded on the baptismal formula, as 
an answer to the enemies of the - early church. The Xicean 
Creed formulated in 325 A.»D. was an answer against one of 
the most destructive heresies of all history — Arianism. Had 
not the defenders of the "faith once delivered unto the 
saints", formulated these statements of Christian Faith, we 
beyond doubt would have neither Christ to preach nor Bible 
to read. 

The creed is nowhere in Protestantism given a place above 
the Bible. It is always considered as having a subordinate, 
and nowhere a superior place ; for a creed is simply a state- 
ment of what the Church conceives the Bible to teach upon 
the fundamental truths within it. It is the platform of the 
Church setting forth her attitude toward, as well as her con- 
viction on, the great questions with which it has to do. If a 
platform — or a creed — is not only expedient but necessary for 
social and political propaganda, why should it not be for 
spiritual propaganda as well? The creed does not then suit- 
plant the Bible any more than a political platform supplants 



— 132 — 

government. As the latter interprets government, so the 
former interprets the Bible. The province of the creed is to 
be a defense of the Bible and to give it power in the hands of 
man. 

Then again a creed is necessary to the stability and life of 
the Church. Many minds looking at the Bible — now through 
their weakness, now through their strength — arrive at many 
conclusions. The difficulty is not with the Bible — its measure 
is ever the same — but with the mind, etc., of man who at- 
tempts to understand it. Here is a mind that has a special 
adaptation for delving into the deep things of Grod. His con- 
clusions from estimating divine truth are quite different from 
the man who has no aptitude in this direction at all. The 
finer and deeper meanings of truth and of their application 
to the needs of the soul, to the one man are clear and distinct ; 
to the other they are unreal and vague. The creed then is a 
bulwark of strength for the Church against heresy and un- 
belief and no man who knows its significance will deny it a 
place in the Christian programme. 



APPENDIX B. - 

Psalms 119:97 — "0 how love I thy law! It is my meditation 
all the day." 

There are three kinds of law spoken of in the Bible, (1) 
Civil, (2) Ceremonial, (3) Moral: The latter alone is binding 
on all men. God gave this law through: 

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. 

I. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods 
before me. 

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any 
likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the 
earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou 
shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them ; for I the 
Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the 
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth genera- 
tion of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thou- 
sands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 

II. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in 
vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His 
name in vain. 

III. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 

Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the 
seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou 
shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, 
thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor 
thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the 
Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, 
and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the 
Sabbath day, and hallowed it. 

IV. Honor thy father and thy mother, that it may be well 
with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. 

133 



— 134 — 

V. Thou shalt not kill. 

VI. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 

VII. Thou shalt not steal. 

VIII. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neigh- 
bor. 

IX. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. 

X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man- 
servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his cattle, nor anything 
that is his. 

Some of the names by which the Ten Commandments are 
known are 'The Law;' the Decalog — or the 10 words; and the 
tables of the Covenant. They are written by the finger of 
God on two tables of stone on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 20:2-17), 
and delivered as an independent code of laws to Moses for the 
people of Israel. 

As to the division of the decalog, Churches differ some- 
what. This does not however effect the meaning, but only 
the arrangement. Some combine the ninth and tenth com- 
mandments and divide the first one into two. Others among 
which is the Lutheran, state them in the above form which is 
the more historically true. 

I. This Commandment teaches, that "We should fear, love 
and trust God above all things." 

II. This Commandment teaches, that "we should fear and 
love God and not curse, swear, conjure, lie or deceive by His 
name : but call upon His name in every time' of need, and 
worship Him with prayer praises and thanksgiving." 

III. This Commandment teaches, that "we should fear and 
love God, and not despise preaching and His word, but gladly 
bear and learn it." ' Sabbath means rest.' You keep the 



— 135 — 

first day of the week holy and sacred as the Sabbath because, 
(1) Jesus arose on this day; (2) Also on this day He fre- 
quently appeared to His disciples after His resurrection; (3) 
and on this day the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Apostles 
(on the day of Pentecost) ; (4) the Apostles kept this day for 
worship: and they must have known their Lord's will. 

IV. This Commandment teaches, that "we should love and 
fear God and not despise our parents and superiors, not pro- 
voke them to anger, but honor, serve, love and esteem them." 
It is the first commandment with a promise. 

V. This Commandment teaches, that "we should love and 
fear God, and not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but 
help and befriend him in every bodily need." This command- 
ment is broken when, (1) We maliciously take the life of 
another; (2) when we maliciously use our influence and au- 
thority to secure the death of another; (3) by influencing 
others to form habits that ruin health and shorten life ; (4) 
by harboring malice or revenge; (5) by taking one's own life. 
Life may be taken in the following ways without breaking 
this cor&mandment: (1) In self defence; (2) in the public 
defence; (3) in executing a judicial sentence; (4) by unavoid- 
able accident. 

VI. This Commandment teaches, that "we should fear and 
love God and live chaste and pure in words and deeds, and 
husband and wife each love and honor the other." This 
commandment forbids, adultery and all kinds of impure 
thoughts, words and acts. It requires us "to cultivate pure 
thoughts, pure words and pure deeds" (Matthew 19:5-6). 

VII. This Commandment teaches, that "we should fear and 
love God and not take our neighbor's money or property, nor 
get it by false dealing, but help him to improve and protect 
his property and living." This commandment is broken: 
"(1) In theft or dishonesty; (2) by unfair dealing or fraud, 
by which another's property is brought into our possession 



— 136 — 

without his consent or a just equivalent." It forbids likewise 
hording, and enjoins giving to God. 

VIII. This Commandment teaches, that "we should fear 
and love God and not falsely belie, betray, and backbite, nor 
slander our neighbor, but excuse him, speak well of him and 
put the best construction on all he does" (Ephesians 4:25, 
James 4:11, Psalms 34:12). 

IX. This Commandment teaches, that "we should fear and 
love God, and not craftily seek to gain our neighbor's in- 
heritance or home, nor get it by a show of right, but help and 
serve him in keeping it" (Luke 7:15). 

X. This Commandment teaches, that "we should fear and 
love God, and not estrange, force or entice away from our 
neighbor his wife, servants, cattle but urge them to stay." 
This commandment forbids "evil designs upon our neighbor's 
family or property. It requires "us so to love our neighbor 
as to help him maintain the happiness and prosperity of his 
household." 

A. "Has man ever kept God's commandments? No." "We 
have all sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Ee- 
clesiastes 7:20). 

B. "What will enable us to keep God's commandments?" 
"To keep the commandments of God, we need a new heart" 
(Psalms 51:10). 



APPENDIX C. 

TWO DOZEN QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 
ON LUTHERANISM. 

1. What is the origin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church? 
(A). Historically: it dates back to the launching of the 
Reformation under Dr. Martin Luther in 1517. As to its 
teaching, it dates back to the time of the Apostles. Luther 
simply restored the Church of the New Testament, 

2. Why called the 'Evangelical Lutheran' Church? (A). 
As the regenerated Church, it bears the name of its 
founder. (B). As Evangelical, it stands firmly upon the 
Gospel, both in preaching and practice. 

3. When and where was Dr. Luther born? (A). He was 
born at Eisleben, Germany, November 10, 1483. 

4. In what Church was he reared? (A). In the Roman 
Catholic Church. 

5. Why did he leave the Roman Catholic Church? (A). He 
severed his relations with that Church because of its cor- 
ruption and false teaching within. Upon a mission to 
Rome, Luther saw the lack of real religion in his Church 
and determined to correct the abuses from within. He 
soon saw this was impossible, so withdrew. 

The Roman Catholics allege that it was because he was 
desirous of getting married. No greater lie was ever 
perpetrated. No other answer on their part can be given 
by the Roman Catholic priests since they wish to cover 
up to their people, the real cause, well attested even in 
secular history. 

6. What are the fundamental principles of the Reformation ? 

137 



— 138 — 

1. The supremacy of the Word of God in all matters of 
faith and practice. It is the final source of appeal. 

2. Justification by faith. 

3. The universal priesthood of all believers. A mere 
glance only at these principles is needed to convince 
any one that the Lutheran Church is the very oppo- 
site of the Roman Church. 

7. What event marked the opening of the Reformation? 
(A). The nailing of the ninety-five theses — or proposi- 
tions — upon the Castle Church, at Wittenberg, October 
31, 1517. 

8. When and where was the word 'Protestant' first ap- 
plied to Christians? (A). In 1529, at the Diet — or coun- 
cil — of Spires. It was used as a nick-name against those 
who protested against the teachings of the Church of 
Rome. 

9. What one charge in particular did Luther bring against 
the Roman Catholic Church? (A). That of selling in- 
dulgences. The pope was building the great Church of 
St. Peter at Rome and to induce people to contribute 
of their money he sent men throughout the land selling 
what is known in history as 'indulgences.' These were 
papers given upon the payment of a certain amount of 
money which either forgave their sins for a certain length 
of time or procured their release altogether. An in- 
dulgence is a bargain or promise, whereby, upon the 
payment of a certain amount of money the individual 
received full pardon from the penalty of sin, or secured 
the release of a soul from the flames of Purgatory. It 
was this blasphemy that incensed Luther and made him 
cry out against it. 

10. What other great events marked the life of Dr. Luther? 
(A). 1. His stand at the Diet — or council — of Worms in 



— 139 — 

1521. Dr. Luther was summoned here by the Emperor, 
in the hope that he would either not appear, or if he did, 
would recant or renounce his teachings. Here was born 
that immortal saying, "Here I stand: I cannot do other- 
wise. God help me." The translation of the Scriptures 
into the language of the German people while residing at 
the Wartburg Castle, to which place his friends had taken 
him for safety, from the pope. 

11. Who was Luther's able assistant? (A). Philip Melanch- 
ton. 

12. What writing expresses the teaching of the Lutheran 
Church? (A). The Augsburg Confession. 

13. Why and when formulated? (A). It is called the Augs- 
burg Confession because it was presented at Augsburg, 
to the German Emperor, Charles V. at a council called 
by him in an attempt to settle the difference between the 
Lutherans and the Roman Church. It is a statement of 
what the former believed and taught. 

It was presented in June 25, 1530. 

14. Of how many articles is it composed? (A). Twenty-one 
in which there is set forth the positive teaching of the 
Lutheran Church. There are also seven articles in which 
are reviewed the abuses which have been corrected. 

15. Of what do they teach? (A). 1. On God. 2. On Original 
Sin. 3. On the Son of God and His Mediatorial Work. 
4. On Justification. 5. On the Ministerial Office. 6. On 
New Obediences. 7. On the Church. 8. What the Church 
is. 9. On Baptism. 10. On the Lord's Supper. 11. On 
Confession. 12. On Repentance. 13. On the use of the 

• Sacraments. 14. On Church Orders. 15. On Church 
Rites. 16. On Civil Affairs. 17. On Christ's Return to 
Judgment. 18. On Free Will. 19. On the Cause of Sin. 
20. On Good Works. 21. On the Invocation of Saints. 



— 140 — 

16. What are some other writings of the Lutheran Church? 
(A). 1. Melanchton's Apology of the Augsburg Confes- 
sion. 2. The Larger and Smaller Catechisms of Luther. 
3. The Smalcald Articles. 4. The Formula of Concord. 

17. What is Luther's Small Catechism? (A). It is a "Short 
summary in questions and answers of what God's word 
teaches concerning faith and life." 

18. Why and when was it made? (A). It was made in re- 
sponse to the great need of religious teaching noted by 
Luther. With the opening up of the religious awakening 
under him, the awful ignorance of the Bible came to light. 
This was his attempt to satisfy this need. His example 
has been followed by every religious movement or body 
since it was made in 1529, thus making it the oldest Cate- 
chism of any importance, in existence: That by the 
Roman Catholic Church not being issued till some few 
years later. 

19. How many parts has it? (A). It has five parts: 1. The 
Ten Commandments. 2. The Apostles' Creed. 3. The 
Lord's Prayer. 4. Baptism. 5. The Lord's Supper. 

20. Does the Lutheran Church believe in formalism? (A). 
By no means. It does however believe in good form. No 
public service was ever conducted, without some kind 
of a form. The Lutheran Church believes in a good form, 
as over against a poor one. Thus she has her beautiful 
service to both begin and close her public worship, by 
which her people are prepared for that which is every- 
thing to the heart of the Lutheran — the hearing of the 
Word of God. If the pastor is robed, it is only that that 
Word may be given greater emphasis and greater and 
easier access to the mind and heart of the people. Every- 
thing is done decently and in order, that men may be 
brought in mind and heart nearer to their God. 



— 141 — 

21. How does one come into the Lutheran Church? (A). 
There are three recognized forms of entry: 1. Confirma- 
tion. 2. Baptism. 3. By letter. 

22. What .constitutes membership in the Lutheran Church? 
(A). Membership in the Lutheran Church is not de- 
pendent upon any amount of money that may be given, 
but upon the individual attitude toward the Lord's Sup- 
per. If the heart is right it will be evidenced by attend- 
ance at the table of the Lord and not by the paying of a 
certain amount to the Church. This does not excuse any 
member from giving toward the Lord's work however. 
Not only does the Church expect him to give if at all able, 
but does so upon the teaching of the Bible. It does not 
expect any more or less than this book. It accepts the 
Xew Testament rule of 'giving as God has prospered.' 

23. How many Lutherans are there in the world? (A). There 
are near 76,000,000 Lutherans in the world, more than 
all the other protestant denominations combined. 

24. How many Lutherans in America? (A). There were in 
1912 near two and a half million Lutherans in this coun- 
try. There are however, 13,000,000 baptized members in 
America. "While these are divided up into four large 
general bodies — the General Synod organized in 1820: 
the General Council organized in 1867 : the Synodical Con- 
ference organized in 1872 : and the United Synod South, 
organized in 1886 — and 15 Independent Synods, yet the 
faith of the Lutheran Church the world over is the same. 
All stand upon the word of God and the Augsburg Con- 
fession as fully setting forth its teachings on the funda- 
mental facts. 

THE END 



CONTENTS: 

Page 

Forword 5 

Study I— The Doctrine of the Bible 7 

Its Nativity 8 

Its Nature 11 

A Brief Synopsis of the Bible 13 

Study II— The Doctrine of God 15 

How Can I Know There is a God 15 

What is He 19 

Study III— The Doctrine of Man: The State of Innocence 25 

His Origin 26 

Did God Create Man ! 27 

Why Did God Create Man? 28 

Study IV— The Doctrine of Man: The State of Sin 30 

What is It? 30 

Where Sin was Destined to Lead Man 32 

Study V— The Doctrine of Man: The State of Grace 35 

The Author of Salvation 36 

When was Kedemption Determined for Man? 38 

Study VI— The Doctrine of Christ: His Person 40 

What He Is 40 

His Names 40 

His Natures 41 

Study VII— The Doctrine of Christ: His Life 46 

His State of Humiliation 46 

His State of Exaltation 48 

Study VIII— The Doctrine of Christ: His Work 52 

The Reason for Redemption 53 

How He Redeemed Me 54 

Study IX— The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit 59 

His Person 60 

His Work 61 

The Results of His Work 63 

Study X— The Doctrine of Salvation 65 

The Nature of Salvation 65 

The Necessity of Salvation 66 

The Condition of Salvation 67 

Study XI— The Doctrine of Sin 71 

What is It! 71 

Why is Sin? 73 

The Attitude of God Toward Sin 74 

143 



— 144 — 

Study XII— The Doctrine of Prayer 77 

What Prayer Is 78 

To Whom Should We Pray? 80 

For What Should We Pray? 81 

Study XIII — The Doctrine of Baptism: Its Nature and Necessity. ... 83 

The Nature of Baptism 83 

Its Necessity ' 86 

Study XIV— The Doctrine of Baptism: The Mode 89 

From Eeason 89 

From Eevelation 90 

The Bible and Baptism 92 

Study XV — The Doctrine of Baptism: Its Subjects 98 

The Testimony of the Word of God 99 

Study XVI— The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper 106 

Its Power 107 

Its Preparation 117 

Study XVII— The Doctrine of Last Things 119 

Death 119 

The Kesurrection 122 

The Final Judgment 123 

The End of the World 125 

Eternal Death for the Lost and Eternal Life for the Saved. . . . 125 

Appendix A. The Apostles ' Creed 130 

Appendix B. The Ten Commandments 133 

Appendix C. Two Dozen Questions and Answers on Lutheranism. . . . 137 



NOV W 5318 



?06> 



